User talk:Stardust6000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Stardust6000, 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!  Robdurbar 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cindy Lauper / List of best selling music artists

Hi, I notice you keep adding Cindy Lauper to the List of best-selling music artists. The problem with your addition is that - though sourced - it is sourced from a Wikipedia page, and from 'answers.com'. If you read the page's guidelines, you'll see that Wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source for another Wikipedia article (if it was, we could just write anything we wanted); answers.com, too, is a mirror site of Wikipedia.

If you want to include Cindy Lauper, please find an independent website/book/tv show that makes the claim for her record sales, or lists her sales individually so that they can be added up to 50 million +.

Cheers Robdurbar 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers.com

Sorry about that, you know I actually thought that Answers.com was a seperate and reliable source. Thank you for your correction. It would seem quite odd for Cyndi Lauper to have not sold over 50 million records, so if you come by anything on the internet that confirms this please add her to the list. Thank you, it is great to work with kind individuals such as yourself. User: Stardust6000 09:00, 29 March 2006

[edit] License tagging for Image:B0002BSFQI.01. AA240 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B0002BSFQI.01. AA240 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Fd530879-387c-4af4-9520-b79789097b5e.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fd530879-387c-4af4-9520-b79789097b5e.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, remain civil

Regarding your comments here, please remain civil and don't make personal attacks. When A Man in Black said to dump weasel words, he was referring to an established style guide. He was not making comments about the contributor or contributors, but instead about the layout of the article. Please, always assume good faith. -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I guessed it was a misunderstanding. Note that he said dump, not dumb. I hope that clarifies everything, and thanks for the reply. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link image

I don't really see the rationale behind having a picture of him not holding any weapons. Both images are quite similar, except that the one I restored contains additional "information", as it illustrates Link's handedness. To me, this seems an argument for keeping the current image. However, I'll gladly grant you that it isn't a very strong argument, and that the issue is not that important anyway; I happen to prefer the current image, because the perspective in the other one seems awkward to me. However, if you really think the image you uploaded and edited is better for whatever reason, go ahead and put it in the article. Phils 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

Please do not remove any information from image pages, they can be deleted because of this. It is also considered extreme vandalism. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well then why did you remove it if you knew it would be deleted? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your removal of messages. If you don't want them on your talk page, archive them, but don't delete them. See WP:ARCHIVE, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that it got tagged for deletion right afterwards? All images need some form of tag. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well go learn! And your page is fine, archive it when the 30kb note comes up at the top of the page when you click "Edit this page". Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of music article

Hi, I personally don't think a separate List of artists who debuted at number-one on the Hot 100 (U.S.) is a good idea. Having individual articles on every Billboard achievement is a little much. The majority of the information in the article was already present in List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia. Also, the article has not been deleted. I had proposed a deletion after seeing that it was redundant and seeing a comment on the talk page where another user stated that the article was not useful. After I proposed a deletion, another user endorsed this deletion, and another redirected the article to List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia. Your work is not lost as it is still included in the history of the redirected article. If there is missing information that you feel should be included in the Hot 100 achievements article, I think you should add it to that section of the article as at least four users have felt that a separate article on Hot 100 debuts is unnecessary and redundant. --musicpvm 02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson's pitch

If you did some research on the internet or on the wikipedia People with aboslute pitch category section you would find that Michael Jackson does indeed have perfect pitch. As a musician myself I wouldn't even need an internet confirmation to confirm his pitch, but regardless there are a great many sources confirming this so please do not remove this category anymore, thank you.--Stardust6000 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And what is your authoritive source? Some random website with no notability or a blog? I thought so. Completely unnacceptable when we are talking about a biography of a living person. Someone's opinion is not valid on this subject. I will expect a source from a well known scientific body with previous research work on the subject as the only acceptable source. Random Press articles and other fan crud do not do the job.--I'll bring the food 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of many sources for you to go through. I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast if I were you. [1]--Stardust6000 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a published blog by a user on the last.fm site, not an authoritive expert on the subject. I could create a user account on there and insist Michael Jackson was an elephant.--I'll bring the food 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is also a link to a scientific article discussing absolute Pitch. I was posting this while you were sending a new message[2]--Stardust6000 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not an acceptable source. "About Psychology Today-WHO WE ARE-...many issues concerning our emotional well-being...family concerns...Our site has been designed to cut through these problems by providing easily accessible, well written and timely health information...". This is clearly a health site. This is totally out-of-scope. If this is acceptable I'm going to post that Michael Jackson is an elephant on my companies corporate website even though this will be clearly utter fabrication. You seem to believe any source is acceptable so then I blatently will be correct and able to then use it as a source in the article. After all, it'll be wyeth's site I'll be posting it on.--I'll bring the food 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the most official source I have found so far. It is an official website with a list of famous people with perfect pitch. Michael Jackson is right in there among other famous musicians and composers. I hope that clears everything up now, thank you for your time.[3] unsigned comment by Stardust6000 .

Again, this is a site selling a product - the site is using Jackson's name in order to boost sales by association. The site is selling a dream of being able to match a skill of one of the greats of modern music. There is no background or explanation into the site's obtaining of the information you are intent on using. It is not an acceptable source.--I'll bring the food 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, all your sources have been unreliable and did not assert notability. In cases like this the solution is to not say it. In cases of living people it is of vital importance that evidence is reliable and relevant. If we have information that is shaky on subjects of this calibre -- in this case a rich man with lots of lawyers; we put the Wiki in a seriously shaky position. We all have things we don't like on the wiki happen. Do you think I'm happy over 30 people had to be removed from the whistle register cat by hand, by me, because an annoying, precocious 14 year old boy under various aliases put them in after checking it all with a guitar tuner to verify? Do you think I was happy that he thought an E5 from Jessica Simpson was an e6 because the tuner didn't pick up the note properly? Do you think a source from a site selling a self help guide, a psychology health site discussing a music subject and a blog written by what could be ANYONE are all acceptable sources? Really? Seriously?--I'll bring the food 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Hi

Wikipedia uses independent sources to cite facts. Record company sites are notorious for inflating their artists sales, not just for MJ but all artists. This is policy, and has been discussed at length on MJ talk page. Please do not revert again. May I point you to WP:RS which explains this. Thanks -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aladdin

This has been discussed. Read the talk page and the archives. In order for a film to remain on the list it has to have a citation saying it is "the best" in the genre. Let's look at the other films in Animation:

[edit] Animation

  • Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) is the highest-grossing animated film of all time when adjusted for inflation. Snow White also appeared at #49 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American movies (compiled in 1998), higher than any other animated film.
  • Tale of Tales (Сказка сказок) (1979) - Yuriy Norshteyn's short film was voted by a large international jury to be the greatest animated film of all time at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympiad of Animation and the 2002 Zagreb World Festival of Animated Films. [4] [5]
  • Akira (1988) was chosen as the top anime ever by Anime Insider in fall 2001.
  • Beauty and the Beast (1991), is the only fully-animated movie (computerized or not) to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It has also been nominated for a total of six Oscars, more than any other animated film. It was also the first animated movie to win the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical.
  • The Lion King (1994) The highest grossing traditionally animated movie of all time.
  • Toy Story (1995) was voted #1 on the Top 100 Animated Features of All Time by the Online Film Critics Society (list published March 2003). Toy Story was also the first animated movie to be nominated for a Best Screenplay award at the Oscars.
  • Toy Story 2 (1999) is the top rated movie of all time at Rotten Tomatoes.com with 100% approval by 106 critics.
  • Shrek (2001) Has the most nominations out of any animated movie for the MTV Movie Awards.
  • Spirited Away (2002) was voted best animated movie by IMDb users. It was the first anime (Japanese animation) film to win an Academy Award. It is the only movie to earn $250M before its US release.
  • Shrek 2 (2004) highest grossing animated movie of all time.
  • The Incredibles (2004), was nominated for 16 Annie Awards (the top award ceremony honoring animation), more than any other film. It also has won 10 of its nominations, another record. It also won the Best Animated Feature Oscar, and became one of only four animated movies ever to be nominated for a Best Screenplay Oscar.

I've highlighted the citations that warrant inclusion in the list. Of these I think Shrek is questionable because the MTV Movie Awards has a short history, and nominations are not wins. I would argue that it should be removed, and I probably will (I've been gone for a month and just noticed its inclusion). Beauty and the Beast is also borderline, but since the article mentions the Academy Awards as a measure for inclusion and has a long history, I'd let it slide. The other citations are clear. All the other information with the films is interesting, but it is not the reason why the films remain in the article. Find a comparable citation for Aladdin and I won't remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VGCharts

Logically, if the source is bad, the numbers are no better. It is not good to knowingly keep false info on Wikipedia just because we have no info to replace it with. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing numbers that aren't from VGCharts. Any number not from VGCharts can stay, because we don't know whether or not they're wrong, while with VGCharts, they're wrong, and there's no legitimate dispute about that whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The owner of VGCharts has stated that his numbers are estimates and shipments. And, the user is not even a professional estimater, he's just a guy from NeoGAF. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
These numbers are estimates. Basically, any source that backs them up is not backing them up, but just copy/pasted the numbers from VGCharts. There is no one other than the developers who have an idea of how many copies a game has sold. Everyone else does estimates (but unlike VGCharts, builds up on more than shipments, but rather what the stores say a game has sold), so tell me - what are the odds that a member of NeoGAF is the only person on the face of the Earth with the correct sales? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed sources because they clearly SOURCED VGCHARTS. It's almost the same thing as sourcing VGCharts. I have found that on several occasions, people, including news site [6] have used VGCharts shipments and report them as sales figures. And you remember the SMB source? Notice how it isn't a source for that number at all? It is stating that SMB sold more than 40 million copies. No one on Earth DOESN'T know that, that's the one sales figure that everyone knows. We need a source for 40.24 million, not over 40 million.

[edit] Tina Turner

Pink is not a proper color for an artist infobox. Please see Template:Infobox musical artist for usage and color guidelines. As a solo singer, Tina Turner's article should be labeled with the "solo_singer" designation, as it now has. --FuriousFreddy 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:B000IY04RW.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V38759120 .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:B000IY04RW.01. SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V38759120 .jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best-selling music artist

Thanks for your contribution for the Best-selling music artist in relation to Michael Jackson, but for a second time I have reversed it. Note also that you did a rv of all edits to your previous edit thus undoing all corrections made. Please do not rv like this in future.

The reason why it was reversed is because the information provided is a) already detailed as a 'claim' in the paragraph above. b) the link provided, although cites the same '..is believed to be around 750 million', it does not specify that Jackson received an award for such sales, as your edit suggests. c) is repetitive of the statement directly above it once the link is taken into account. Also note that I have already made the comment in the 'discussion' that this is NOT about whether Jackson has sold this amount, it is having a source that says this as such (verifable and credible source). If you can provide a link that specifies that one of the awards received was for selling 750 million, or that his sales have been confirmed as such, then this can be amended to suit. 60.234.242.196 04:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup and better factual information. It is much better than what was originally there. 60.234.242.196 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Movie bg9.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Movie bg9.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/User_talk%7EStardust6000_b1cf.html"