User talk:GassyGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, GassyGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bachrach44 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Maxwell article

Thanks for voting to delete a promotional article that does not belong in Wikopedia. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.MollyBloom 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell Article II

As it has been requested that more evidence of his stature be provided to support the claim that he is both an international figure & recognized as superlative within his field. I give you these links to recent meetings world-wide where he's been an invited speaker. This is in addition to hundreds of other events he's done before the last two years. Can you plausibly still argue about whether this is someone not exceptional in the field?

South Korea 2005 [[1]] China 2005 [[2]] Keynote Speaker of Kentucky State Meeting 2005[[3]] Stockholm 2005 [[4]] Russia 2006 [[5]] Brazile 2006 [[6]] Orlando,FL ASAPS 2006 presenter/panelist [download/2006ScientificProgram.pdf] Atlanta Breast Symposium 2006/2005 [[7]] [[8]] Speaker at Northeastern Plastic Surgery Society meeting 2005[[9]] 2005 Mexico [[10]] 2005 Milan [European Conference 0.pdf#search='patrick%20maxwell%20surgery'] [[11]] Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter [[12]] New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker Quebec 2004 [[13]]Droliver 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamantis Stagidis

Can point to where the previously deleted article is located please? -- Francs2000 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's fine. It's gone now. -- Francs2000 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
PS in future you can make it clearer where the consensus to delete was met by using the syntax {{db|Repost, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/foo]]}}. But what you did is also fine. -- Francs2000 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: SideKick story

The incident has gained mention on the New York Times. In addition, the article has been rephrased to draw attention away from the website (as was complained) and towards the incident itself as well as the effects. Would you reconsider your vote? -- Evanx(tag?) 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] voyage disambiugation

sorry, but i wasn't vandalising voyage in any way. it was all in good faith. but thanks for adding those two other links, now it makes A LOT more sense. --Paaerduag 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PYT lyrics

I just checked in on PYT, and the lyrics are gone. what must I do to use them without violating any copyright laws? --Paaerduag 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] succession boxes

Hi Gassy. Just letting you know I removed the extra succession box you put in the "Volare" article. I thought about adding second boxes to songs that dropped/returned to #1 but I think it's just going to get too messy if extra boxes are added to all the songs that made that chart-move. The only exception I made was for "The Twist".... I figure the real purpose of the succession boxes would be a clean, easy way to flow from one #1 article to the next without a lot of confusion (once theyre all created, of course). Anyway, just letting you know why I changed your edit. Let me know if you strongly oppose it. Later! -- eo 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

heh... and also, with reference to the above, I changed the box links back so that the "preceding/succeeding" dont show the same song. If theyre both the same, it prevents the flow from one to the next.... kinda like the "Billboard number ones" book... each page is a new song. Let me know what you think. Thanks!-- eo 12:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I couldn't decide which way was better - it seemed that either way had problems and benefits. I don't really mind the way you've done it now, because the link to the week-by-week list helps to clarify any confusion it might have caused. Thanks for going through and checking it. GassyGuy 12:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I've noticed that now people are adding succession boxes for UK and New Zealand #1s so it'll be interesting to see how out of control these boxes will get. I figure the less there are on each page, the better. We'll see how it goes, I guess. -- eo 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
A few aren't too bad. As long as they're restricted to major national charts, I imagine it'll be okay. There are only a few songs (e.g., "Dragostea Din Tei") where it could become a bit too cluttered if succession boxes were attempted for all of the major markets where it topped the charts. Eh, for now it's not really an issue. "We'll climb that hill / No matter how steep / When we get up to it." GassyGuy 12:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for Cher-ing

Hey, no problem - I see no issue with what you're doing.... I saw that a bunch of the pages were created (mostly stubs) and I just cleaned up some formatting, i.e. moving the infobox to the beginning of the articles, un-boldfacing #1's and general minor stuff. The Shoop Shoop Song is the only major cover that she had a hit with (that I am aware of), so redirecting is the right thing to do, as I understand it. That one IP user messaged me cuz (s)he thought I deleted tables or something but we discussed it and I think (s)he is ok now. -- eo 20:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You)"

I was under the impression that the "is" should be lower-case. I changed it back. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

hi if u redirect anymore pages to a main page make sure u inlcude the information that was on that previous page on the new one, i believe u moved all i really wanna do (cher) to all i really want to do (dylan) thats fine but make sure that u make a complete page next time

[edit] Some Wikimarkup Help

I noticed you had some trouble adding an entry to RfD because the redirect pointed to a category. To link to a category without adding the page to that category, you must start with a colon. [[:Category:Channel 13 TV stations in the United States]] gives the link Category:Channel 13 TV stations in the United States. I already changed that in RfD for you. The same goes for images, such as [[:Image:Wiki.png]] gives a link to Image:Wiki.png instead of placing the image on the page. Timrem 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! GassyGuy 22:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do You Believe in Magic (song)

Wow, your recent edits to that article are extremely appreciated! I find it really annoying when an article on a song only has information about a cover version that is far less notable than the original (see also Walking on Sunshine (song), an article on a song covered by this "Aly & AJ" that previously had no info on the very famous original). Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Fagatron

I think a 7 times speedy has got to be a record, or something. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust*T C 11:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is cracking me up... Now, even the bots have gotten involved. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust*T C 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This has GOT to be archived... I wonder if there's room at Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust*T C 11:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
And the saga comes to an end... I've got the edit history up to the 07:39 revert by Martinp23. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust*T C 11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schav

Hey GassyGuy, how do you know so much about schav?

[edit] If I could find a way...

Well, I check in on those every so often, but the singles articles I'm not touching past making sure the pages are formated correctly. The chart positions I have corrected but I also know nothing about her sales figures, nor do I care. That one IP dude does seem to love inflating them tho. I agree about the double discography... I left a note on the Cher talk page but I'm about to delete it from the main article if no one objects. It's stupid to have it in both places. -- eo 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article rating

If you read the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment it explains how to rate articles. The easy ones are just putting GA, A-class, or FA. However 90% are not as a general rule stubs have no sections and are really short. Start class has a few sections and some good info and B-class looks like a GA but the content is not yet there. Andman8 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving from User Page

Thanks a million GassyGuy! super helpful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infoart (talk • contribs).

[edit] Db-repost

Hi,

Just so you know, don't mark something for speedy deletion with a G4 template unless it has been AfD'ed. If it is speedied and reposted, just mark it with the original reason for speedying (in most cases, CSD A7.) G4 is designed only for articles that have been through full deletion process. Thanks for helping with tagging! We need the help! Best wishes, Xoloz 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, my mistake! Thanks for letting me know. GassyGuy 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

Just leave the importance blank if you feel uncomfortable, it no big deal. I'll work to changing the template eventually to so "unassesed" if the article is not rated. Andman8 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I was just asking. I only did a few and used the ratings you linked to. No big deal either way. GassyGuy 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL compliancy

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that if we have merged content from one article to another, we cannot delete the original article. I am pretty sure it has to be redirected, which is why you often see other administrators saying "merge and redirect is an invalid option", due to the GFDL and preservation of author contributions. I'll look into it further but wanted to bring it to your attention since you voted to delete post-merge. Silensor 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that I've added a paragraph on the school's accolades at Wydown Middle School. Apparently this is a Blue Ribbon school which has the highest rated math program in the state of Missouri, and has remained in the top ten since 1999. That's notable (to me, anyhow). Silensor 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what this is referencing. If it is my change of vote on the Wydown nomination, I originally thought it was just barely worth keeping as a somewhat notable school. I changed that to a delete because it is now adequately covered at School District of Clayton and does not require a separate page until that page becomes large and it needs to be split, etc., at which time it won't be hard to do. Does this address whatever concern you have re: my stance? GassyGuy 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem

Just fighting the vandals. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 20:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really Saying Something

Thanks... welllllll.... why dont we keep it where it is and have other pages redirect to it only because it has been recorded with both "He Was" and "She Was". At least then the main article will be gender-neutral. Sound cool? -- eo 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you also. And that multiple-pages-for-cover-versions drives me crazy. Dunno if you read my Talk Page, but an editor was responding to a merge tag I submitted, saying that "More, More, More" by Andrea True Connection and "More More More" by Rachel Stevens should have separate articles because one uses commas and the other doesn't. Good idea to start a list. Sometimes it's just daunting. I'm workin' the Bananarama singles now, so when I get their "More More More" single, Ill clean that shit up at least. -- eo 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! GassyGuy 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:MindbendersAGKoL.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MindbendersAGKoL.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For anyone keeping score at home, I'd just forgotten to choose one when uploading. It falls under the {{albumcover}} category and has since been duly tagged. GassyGuy 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mach 6 - please rv your deletes until a consensus is drawn

Every song is notable please see ozzmosis if you do not agree. Eventually extra information will be written by different editors. Andman8 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "every" song does not deserve an article but any song with wide notability does. Please do not persue a crusade to wipe out song stubs. There are thousands and it would be a big loss for wiki. I think the more knowledge the better. Besides, eventually as the song stub articles evolve someone will add a lyrics explanation/analysis or recording details, etc. Andman8 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've justified myself the best I can. I can refer you to a similar situation with Kent-Meridian High School. It was an unimportant high school article with a few sentences explaining where it was/date founded/etc. An admin felt it wasn't important enough to be an article. A nomination for deletion was put up and after much deliberation it was decided all high schools are notable for just being high school. Your "speedy deletion" shouldn't happen until a nomination for deletion arguement has been completed.

You get my drift. Okay so finally. I like wiki, I contribute knowing there is no compensation and I really enjoy making obscure articles for things I am interested in. I can spend all night giving an analysis of the songs and various trivia but I would choose to spread that out over the course of a few months. Taking 5 AP classes I don't really have much time to contribute. So please leave my little articles alone. Andman8 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't deletions. Your articles said nothing to justify the importance of the songs. As it happens, I actually restored two of them, the singles, because singles by notable artists tend to be kept. However, articles saying "X is Track y on Album z" and that have no claim of notability should not be here. That is my stance. GassyGuy 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know from where you copied and pasted whatever you've put on my talk page, but it isn't terribly easy to follow. However, your album page remains intact, and as of right now, the two singles from that album also have articles. That's pretty much how it goes unless you can use WP:SONG to establish the notability of the other album tracks. GassyGuy 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Chamberlain and Elvis Presley

Can't think of a more disparate pair of singers. Anyway, thanks for the help and guidance with the Love Me Tender song infobox. I found it amazing that there were so few Elvis single pages (and I only go to 1957); perhaps that has as much to do with the age of Wikipedians as against devotion to Elvis. Fantailfan 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I know you were going quickly, but you may want to flesh out some of the new Elvis single articles. Chronologies without any info are close to being speediable under {{nocontent}}. I know you're an established editor, so I didn't touch 'em, figuring you'll be going back to add the info, but if somebody else comes across them who doesn't recognize you, they might tag them. Good luck with your Elvis singles article project. GassyGuy 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's All Coming Back to Me Now

Thanks for the work you've done on the infoboxes -- great help, cheers. The JPStalk to me 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always happy to help. You've done a very nice job with this article. As was said on the Peer Review, excellent job balancing it for the three different major releases. On a side note, the Pandora's Box version is one of those tunes I just love hearing. GassyGuy 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And that guitar bit in the middle is awesome! The JPStalk to me 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Singles

I suppose they can be deleted, but Too Much (Elvis Presley song) charted. These came out before I was born and Elvis died before I graduated high school - he's a bit too distant for my taste. I was hoping that there would be an actual Presley fan out there who wanted to take them up. Writing the articles, even the basic infoboxes, is a labor of love. I ain't got the love. Fantailfan 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're notable enough. I just question the use of chronologies and tables without actual articles in an encyclopaedia. Normally I would tag for cleanup with insufficient context or something to that degree, but these seriously don't say anything. GassyGuy 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think {{db-context}} was the wrong argument to use, as all of the stubs say what the song title is, the artist name, and when it was released. That's enough context for anyone to add to the stub. Deletion should probably find another argument, which means prod or a mass AfD in my mind. I notice there's already several Elvis discography/single articles, so it's not a huge deal, but... -- nae'blis 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The template says "little or no context" and I thought that was about as little as it could get, but I can't deny that you're more familiar with the workings than I am. A deletion could get messy, because my problem isn't the article topic so much as the fact that these current stubs seem counterproductive in the long run. While I suppose I could AfD them in hopes that someone would see and expand the article, that seems like a way of attempting to use AfD as cleanup, which, of course, isn't its purpose. What would you say is the proper place to take them as far as getting attention in helping them become more article-like? I know they're tagged with stub templates, but I also know that that guarantees nothing as far as attention to them. GassyGuy 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I only know enough about deletion policy to be dangerous. ;) What I was thinking was maybe redirecting the ones without awards/chart rankings/significant histories to Elvis_Presley_discography#Singles_.28in_America.29, which already has a complete chronological (but not linked) list, as far as I can tell. I'm not so sure that the majority of them are notable, and the stubs/article titles could be used in some cases for songs by other artists ("I'll Never Let You Go" is Steelheart's biggest single, for example). So I wasn't actually suggesting to AFD them in the hopes that someone would improve them, just looking for a slightly more deliberative option. What if we took the matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs or Wikipedia talk:Notability (songs)? Otherwise, I'm glad to help you refile them under PROD if we can't find a better speedy criterion. Cheers. -- nae'blis 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I just removed the rest of the csd tags, but as mentioned above I'll help retag them if we can figure out a deliberative way to approach this. -- nae'blis 17:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When the Money's Gone

hi usure they r about songs not singles? cuase then a ciover wouldnt matter Rsf7589 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When the Money's Gone

hey take a look at the When the Money's Gone/Love One Another page now and look at the discussion should i still change it? Rsf7589 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Oh. They must have changed it since. --Adriaan90 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When the Money's Gone

ok i completely understand and thanks for adding the deletion signs on cher singles and albums i forgot to do so... so can i go ahead and do a page for love one another or not? Rsf7589 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs vs singles

I just wondered why an article can't be specifically about a single. And what should be done in the case of double-A side singles? Should I do some article splitting? And merging of cover versions? Thanks. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been led to understand via WikiProjectSongs that the current practice is that articles are supposed to be about songs, not single releases. In the case of a double A-side, the songs should have separate articles. The chart and release information will be different, but the songs themselves will have different background information etc. Yes, cover versions of a song should be treated within the same article, and the merging of them is another thing which ought be done. I have a partial list of some articles I've encountered that need to be merged at User:GassyGuy/Multiversions, but I'm sure there are many more out there. Anyway, that's my take on it. You can take it to the talk page of WikiProjectSongs if you'd like confirmation of that, but, as I understand it, all versions of songs should be treated within one article. GassyGuy 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah cool. I was bold anyway, and split a few Will Young double-A sides, and merged one Will Young cover version! I'm quite pleased with what I've done! :) Oh, and I assume you meant "The chart and release information will be the same." Do you think it's a good idea to turn the original double-A side pages (which are now redirects) into disambiguation pages for the two songs? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw some of your splits/merges after I responded and I was quite impressed. Very clean job, well-done. Yeah, what you said is what I meant ;). I'm not sure about using them as disambiguation pages only because they're fairly unlikely as actual search terms. I wouldn't complain about them as disambig pages either, so I'll leave it to you if you think that's better. Again, though, great work on the splitting and merging of the Will Young articles. The only thing I saw that might need tweaking is that "Evergreen (Will Young song)" isn't actually a Will Young original, and the usual naming convention is to use the original artist in the article title, even if the song was popularized by a later version, like with "Torn (Ednaswap song)," which is about Natalie Imbruglia's smash hit. Thanks for putting in so much time/effort to cleaning those up. GassyGuy 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll work on your suggestions tomorrow as it's very late now! I actually enjoyed the splitting, despite my initial annoyance at one article pretty much vanishing completely from Wikipedia! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my pages?

How come you keep deleting my Cyndi Lauper singles pages with re-directs?? Why to different singles? These are individual singles. SO STOP redirecting my singles that I made now their gone! Stop thinking they're the same Hey Now is a DIFFERENT release than GJWHF with a different history and chart success. So please stop vandalizing my articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chad427 (talk • contribs).

Sorry, but it's not vandalism. They are, for all intents and purposes, two versions of the same song. The general policy of Wikipedia is that all versions of a song should be covered in the same article. You're welcome to add as much info as conforms to the guidelines, but the information should be contained within the appropriate article. GassyGuy 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your merge attempt in spite of losing a vote

Listen, you need to respect the wishes of others. You merged Not Fade Away (single) into Not Fade Away (song) despite losing the vote. Stop or I will report you to an admin. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are so willing to flout policy (by the way, Wikipedia policy trumps Wikiproject policy), then why did you participate in the process? And whatever about the vandalism. I was putting things back the way they were before you broke the rules. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Punctuation

Gassy, sorry for the delay in responding to your note on my talk page. I agree that a lot of publications put the comma inside the song double quotes marks, including Rolling Stone and The New York Times, and thus correspond to your MLA cite. But I was going by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks, which gives Wikipedia's rationale for when to do it and when not to do it, and to me the song title case clearly falls into the not-to-do-it case. And the music-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Punctuation MUSTARD guidelines agree. Wasted Time R 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:MOS-T#Punctuation, which reiterates this point. Wasted Time R 14:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artist-specific song categories

And here's a question for you. You recently added Category:Rod Stewart songs to a bunch of songs Stewart just recorded on Still the Same... Great Rock Classics of our Time (I'll Stand by You, It's a Heartache, etc.). Is there a guideline on use of this kind of category? I would argue that it should only be used for the artist who writes the song, or the artist who makes the first well-known recording of it, or for an artist who makes a 'notable' re-recording of it. So for example, I would approve of the category's use for the likes of Angel (Jimi Hendrix song) (Stewart had a modest hit with it), Dirty Old Town (for many years Stewart's version was the best known), (I Know) I'm Losing You (Stewart's rendition was acclaimed), and Downtown Train (Stewart had a big hit with it), but not for Pretty Flamingo (Stewart's version nothing special), You Keep Me Hangin' On (ditto), or for the ones you added (if one of those turns out to become a hit or get a lot of airplay, of course that could change). What do you think? Wasted Time R 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your hard work...

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your noble efforts to clean, merge, and wikify the plethora of multi-version song articles I award GassyGuy the Working Man's Barnstar (even tho you placed an article I created on your list of multiversions... whoops!) Keep up the good work! - eo 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiversions

Saw your list at User:GassyGuy/Multiversions. I've taken care of The First Cut is the Deepest (Sheryl Crow song), If Tomorrow Never Comes (Ronan Keating song), and We've Got Tonight (Ronan Keating song), three classic examples of mindless Wikipedia recentism. Wasted Time R 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Also did It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It) and Don't Cry for Me Argentina (Madonna song). Wasted Time R 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. GassyGuy 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of idioms in the English language

List of idioms in the English language -

A sub-article component of this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at the sub-article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

Steps to list an article for deletion

I just thought you may wish to contribute to the debate. WLD 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your move of It ain't over till the fat lady sings to It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings

Please note that till is correct spelling as per:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/till

Themindset 10:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read this Usage Note from Random House Unabridged:

'Til is usually considered a spelling error, though widely used in advertising: Open 'til ten.

Themindset 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Superstar"

The inuse tag is off. See Talk:Superstar (Carpenters song) for my response to your comments. Wasted Time R 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I didn't realise you'd incorporated the Wet Wet Wet articles into those of "With a Little Help..." and "Love Is All Around". I thought the re-directed articles had just been left by the wayside, which would have been a loss.

Also, I meant that the Wets version of "Love Is All Around" was more successful than the original, which is true. Dudesleeper 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about it. Not a problem. GassyGuy 06:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joy to the World

I don't have a problem with that Mariah Carey single being a redirect to the album (rather than to the actual carol) but your comment about the talk page discussion warranted a note. Consensus doesn't need to be present to create an article; anyone can create an article at any time if the subject is notable enough (and singles that chart are generally considered to be notable). On the other hand, consensus should be reached to do what you did, which was to erase a pretty large amount of information in favor of a redirect without merging that information into the parent article. The guideline clearly states only information that is actually redundant can be left out, and that if a merge is controversial (as shown by me reverting you), you should start a merge request. There's no such thing as a "split a section off to form a new article request"—there's no need for discussion in that case—but there is a system set up for merging articles together.

I'm not the author of any of that information (in fact, I can't stand that pop music garbage), and as I said I do think your second redirect location is acceptable, but I wanted to point out the discrepancy for future reference. If someone else decides to give the article its own space again, you shouldn't make it a redirect without adding the necessary tags and starting further discussion. Kafziel Talk 22:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was only working because there was already the prior deletion discussion (linked to on the talk page) but I suppose it would have been better to go through the Merge Request area. GassyGuy 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Don't edit the articles that have relevant informations, even in Infoboxes, like you did to Listen and And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going articles, the article can be based upon only Infobox and no text enough, if it gives the correct and good information about the article.
Eduemoni 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Just a fairly new user saying hi to another fairly new user. --Umalee 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, it says through the history here that you've been here for a few months. I'm not really new here, either :). I've been doing minor edits for years. I've only been officially registered for a couple of weeks. --Umalee 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Atwood

[edit] Pie vandal

Hi GassyGuy, thanks for bringing it to my attention that he's back. I'm not sure how you know that he is using all those IP's, but definitely report it to WP:AIV directly to get him blocked if he's been adequately warned, or you can report it and discuss what measures should be taken at WP:AN/I. If you have any other concerns, contact me or an admin at the second link. - Gilliam 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, good observation. When I caught him, he was only vandalizing song articles. Report all the information you have on him to the admins at WP:AN/I (or I will if you prefer). The IP I warned earlier today was blocked for a week. - Gilliam 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning:

I apologize for reverting your earlier edit as vandalism. I didn't notice the ':' at the end of Warning and admitedly didn't check into it far enough. I do think it's odd to redirect a page after it has been around for 3 months without any note on the talk page or edit summary as to why...and then to again make it a redirect without any comment on the talk page or edit summary as to why after someone has expressed (by way of reverting your change) that they disagree that the page doesn't deserve a page for itself. Oh well...I'm fine with it as a redirect, and once again, I apologize for calling your edit vandalism. --Onorem 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. No worries. I will consider better ways to explain redirects. GassyGuy 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salt

Thanks, GassyGuy - I feel incredibly stupid for so publicly using a term I've never actually figured out. I've seen how it's used - on issues that keep coming back and back - but what I can't figure out is, why "salt"? I miss the connection, the analogy. Thanks again (oh, and thanks for reverting the strikes - I'm really bothered by the implications of "marshalling the forces", but maybe I'm really bothered that I apparently wasn't invited to the party :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. It's no problem. I really don't know much about the history of that discussion, but I just thought I'd interject my (unwanted) two cents since a lot of otherwise good contributors seemed to have emotions flaring up. Anyway, as far as "salt" goes, it's a comparison to salting the earth. I think people have just gotten used to it and no longer type out "the earth" part, making it hard for other folks to figure out. Hope this helps! GassyGuy 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
ahhhhhh, I see (doh). I was trying to draw a food analogy, and striking out (pass the salt, salt and pepper). At least when I make a fool of myself, I do it quite publicly. With this one, I'm finally cured of venturing into AfD ever again, which I find to be the most hard to understand place on Wikipedia. "I like it" certainly worked on the multiple AfDs without DRVs for Diane Farrell - she got her article, against notability guidelines, at a time when she had no notability (she met notability after her article), and there it sits, non-notably. If we quote the guidelines at WP:NN, we're beaten down and told they're only guidelines - not policy. If we check Google, we're told Google doesn't apply in certain cases. I've nom'd two articles for AfD (after checking with others to make sure it made sense) where I did nothing but make a fool of myself, because there simply are no rules. Two areas of Wiki I can't decipher: images, and AfD. (And doesn't announcing the AfD on AN/I amount to "marshalling the votes"?) Ah, well, enough to keep me busy elsewhere without going there again. Thanks again, at least I now know what salt means. And I appreciated your points there - it's only an article; what's the rush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD is definitely one of the least straight forward areas, because it tries to be both about Wikipedia plicy and community consensus, and the community does not always have consensus to abide by the policies. Fun stuff, huh? And as far as images... I'm with you. I'll write a talk page request that somebody else add or change an image for an article and that's as far as I go, 'cause I can't even begin to work out the rest of it. By the way, I hardly think you made a fool of yourself - made a mistake, perhaps, but Lord knows we all do that! And what you said about AfD is basically true - except on the very obvious articles, no matter what policy or test you cite, somebody is going to tell you it was wrong. It's certainly not the most rewarding part of Wikipedia editing! GassyGuy 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That's the best description of some of the cicular reasoning on Wiki I've seen yet :-) Thanks again, especially for making me feel less stupid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Escape AFD

I think this is the book you are talking about: [14]. Here's the discussion: Brent Henry Waddington. Wavy G 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That's the one! Thank you! GassyGuy 04:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No problemo. It sounded eerily familiar when you said that, and I knew, with a little research, I could find it. Wavy G 07:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Boys Are Coming Home PROD

I found a couple of external sources when I was reviewing the PROD; based on the fact that Playbill covered it I didn't feel comfortable deleting it without a community review. I just wanted to let you know I deprodded it in case you want to take it to AfD because I think the notability is borderline.--Isotope23 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you found some decent sources, then I'm sure it's fine. I had poked around a little bit and didn't come up with anything substantial. GassyGuy 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red linked user names

Usually it means you're a new user. I did look and saw you've been around longer than I have, but when I go through my watchlist and check for vandals, or go through the AfDs or FACs or CfDs or anything, I am always first suspicious of those nominated by red linked users, and doubly so when it is first nominated by a red-linked user for deletion, then supported for deletion by another red-linked user. And usually with good reason. KP Botany 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"usually with good reason" - perhaps so, but you'd be better to check the contribution history rather than simply assume. Some blue links are vandals or sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Some red links are non-problem users. It's not really the best indicator. GassyGuy 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's neither the best nor the only, but given the choice of looking at 50 articles, many editors will go to check for vandalism by looking at diffs posted by red-linked editors. It's how it's done with limited resources, such as time. KP Botany 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soundmaster T

First of all, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have written yourself. Secondly, this DOES qualify for speedy deletion, because no notability is asserted. Please follow the speedy deletion procedure with a hangon tag, and provide proof that they are notable. I am readding the tag. J Milburn 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I would love if you could get a consensus that this dude isn't notable. But you won't. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) for one indication that you won't (it was closed as Delete but overturned at DRV]]. I simply created this article to at least merge in that stub and contextualize it. However, if there wasn't even a consensus to delete his song, I doubt you'll find there's consensus to delete him. Cheers! GassyGuy 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the assertion of notability that kept the song from being deleted is "single charting = notability." I think you'll find, therefore, that "artist charted = notability" will be thrown at you as a claim to notability, so it definitely isn't speediable. Feel free to take it to AfD, though. GassyGuy 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it is standard to answer on the other person's talk page. Secondly, I am not some vandal with an agenda agaisnt you. I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending to 'toy with me', or whatever it is you believe you are doing. The article was horribly written, unsourced, and I could see no assertion of notability. On top of that, you ignored procedure. Guess what? You aren't always right. You probably are right in this case- but treat me, and Wikipedia rules, with some dignity, please. J Milburn 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
First: I've actually seen it split both ways as far as replies go. Some people do each other's talk pages, while others like to keep talk pages threaded. Second: I know you're not a vandal and I don't recall accusing you of such. I certainly don't think you have an agenda against me and I apologize if I gave any impression otherwise. Toying with you? I don't understand the accusation. Horribly written and unsourced? I'll agree to those, but those pull in cleanup tags over speedy tags. I ignored procedure? Yes, that was probably my mistake - I took it off because of the prior AfD but I should have made me motivation clearer. I'm not always right - definitely agree there but I never made a claim otherwise. Treat you with dignity - I didn't realize I did otherwise, but apologies if you perceived such a thing. GassyGuy 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I got a bit ratty, was feeling rather rushed when I posted the message. I didn't like the way you acted as if you were all knowing, and that it would be a waste of my time to challenge your article. The phrase 'Hangon, just for the fun of it' or something got on my nerves. Sorry, just the impression I got. As I say, I was rushed, and so interpretted badly. I have removed the tags from the article, but I think it could still do with some better sources. If you reply to this, please leave a note on my talk page to say that you have. Happy editing! J Milburn 20:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on cosmo4 and the help

thanx for the help, i also disagree with wikipedian who put on the speedy deletion. its an article in need of some fixing maybe but not speedy deletion

[edit] Foreign titles

hi how are you... i originally changed the title to Te Busque and No Hay Igual to Te busque and No hay igual because someone once told me that some rule said that foreign titles should be put in lowercase... can you please tell specifically where it says this... becuase i need to show it whenever i change titles so that no one reverts it Rsf7589 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadin Ospina

Hi there , I 've revamped the above article as a new stub. Please take a look if you like Bwithh 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Atwood

(from User talk:Quarl) Hello! You recently closed an AfD on the article Frank Atwood, where it was determined that a redirect was appropriate. I'm afraid this page has now turned into an incredibly lame edit war where an anonymous IP keeps reverting it without explanation. Not that it's hard for you or I to redirect, but the page history is getting clogged. Is there anything to be done? GassyGuy 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I was away, but Robdubar eventually protected the redirect -- which is exactly what I would have done. Next time, you can request on WP:AN/I or WP:RFP for protection. Cheers :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 07:19Z

(from User talk:Quarl) Hi there. I got your message on my talk page that quoted this. I believe the problem has already been handled since by other editors, so you can ignore this. Sorry for any bother! GassyGuy 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Our messages crossed -- anyway, no bother, asking me was perfectly reasonable; I just wanted to catch up on messages and let you know I wasn't ignoring you. :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 07:23Z

[edit] Reason to Believe Image

"Unrelated info, gratuitous unillustrative image"? Why did you delete Image:Reason to Believe - The Fifth Dimension Travelling Sunshine Show.jpg? Is it because of my "(A Place to) Hideaway" page? Are you just trying to make things harder for me? I didn't break any copyright rules, and it made the page look better. Why'd you delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

  • I removed the image because, in order for an image to be fair use, it has to somehow be adding informative value to the article, not aesthetic value. In this case, the topic of the article was "Reason to Believe," a song; yet the picture was of Karen Carpenter smiling. What critical commentary or other information can we glean about "Reason to Believe" from a picture of Ms. Carpenter? It's a lovely picture, but not one which illuminates anything, and therefore should not be used per fair use policy. GassyGuy 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and she was singing "Reason to Believe" on the Fifth Dimension's television special. What should I do? Post an audio sample? Post a link to a video? Does a picture not suffice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Think about it this way - when you look at that picture, what can you see? If you can't see anything that somehow relates to or explains the song "Reason to Believe," it probably shouldn't be in an article about the song. You are welcome to post an audio sample if you so desire as long as it conforms to the appropriate guidelines. I would not recommend linking to the video as it likely violates WP:EL as a link to copyrighted content. The picture, however, doesn't illuminate anything about the song, nullifying the claim of fair use. If you strongly disagree with this, then I'd recommend asking a neutral party for an opinion, perhaps someone who frequently deals with images and would be a good judge of fair use status. I have been wrong in the past and could be wrong here, and will be wrong again in the future. GassyGuy 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On a related note, when you revert me (or anyone), you should check to see everything you're reverting. In the same edit I removed your image, I also removed irrelevant information and made some formatting fixes, all of which you undid with your reversion. This is not good form. GassyGuy 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:USMC film list

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Back Dorm Boys

You commented that there weren't enough sources. I've add a couple, but I don't know if you feel that they're notable enough. -Pandacomics 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Atmosphere as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Raining Whatever

I don't know why I'm bothering this much - she's a skank and her cover version is hideous - but could you just keep an eye on this? I'm willing to compromise there, but I'm not going to be bulldozed by this editor and I don't want to be the only person arguing with him/her. Note s/he also removes comments left on his Talk Page. - eo

  • I added the article to my watch list just because of this (rather silly) conflict. I agree with you - it's not like any of us is acting out of love for the Halliwell version, we're just trying to give the song a freakin' encyclopaedic treatment. I'll keep an eye out, though I basically said my piece on the talk page, but I'll chime in again as there seems to be a consensus developing. GassyGuy 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Hi, I'm wondering why Shoplifter (song) and Governator (song) were redirected without any sort of discussion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the redirect, but I was unaware that you could redirect things on personal decision. If that's the case, there are several pages that really should be redirected, in my opinion.--JUDE talk 20:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually redirect right away if the article doesn't even claim notability. If the redirect is disputed then I'll attempt to open a discussion of sorts. There's no actual rule against just redirecting (I usually see it as falling within WP:BOLD). There's nothing wrong with opening a discussion first except I find that usually, the people who actually visit the page are never the ones who would judge that an article needs to be redirected, especially on something low traffic like a song that was only a B-side. This results in a rather biased poll, and Wikipedia is not a democracy and all that. Still, if you would prefer these entries be discussed, feel free to undo the redirection and I'll try to say a few words on the talk page. GassyGuy 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't aware of what the policy was. I agree with you in a sense. I've responded to you on the song's talkpage just recently. I'm looking for any sources just in case the song is actually more notable than we previously assumed by the article. So far your redirection to shoplifter is justified in my opinion. Feel free to reinstate that redirect if I'm the only one keeping you.--JUDE talk 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/s/User_talk%7EGassyGuy_e9a3.html"