User talk:Hello Control/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thanks

Thanks for the revert to my bots report page, its much appreciated :) Lloydpick 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

subject

Request - Hello Hello Talk, My contribution: A Rose for Emily - Discussion Questions. I hope this entry will not be removed again because I certainly believe that this link is useful for wikipedia visitors (especially for students who study American literature) and includes original work. I have difficulty understanding how some contributors delete entries without consulting the contributor. The fact that the link gives access to a blog should not mean that it has no place in wikipedia. The blogger is a university instructor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literature2007 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your adding links for a website (alinihatekenblog.wordpress.com) to numerous articles is categorized by Wikipedia as linkspam and has been reverted. Please do not continue adding links to this site. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Control. You have removed my contributions again. I refuse to contribute to wikipedia again. I think wikipedia is becoming a site of power struggle. You should have examined the content more closely before removing the links. I have explored the questions in my classes and they have worked really well. Anyway, I am not going to waste my time contributing to wikipedia anymore. It can be all yours. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literature2007 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I am sorry to hear that you have given up on Wikipedia so easily. However, since you only seem interested in promoting your blog, we will likely manage to suffer the loss without much pain. (I presume it's your blog because the IP address you initially edited from is at Sabanci University, which is where the owner of that blog is employed, according to the blog's "About" page.) —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Hello Control, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, wow—thanks! I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'll have to read up on it before trying it out. Best, —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! Acalamari 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

use of afd vs. speedy

Given the history of Rey Casas the best way will be to send it to afd -- if the people there agree it is a hoax we can then deal more easily with further re-creation of the article. DGG (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: On what planet...

I realize that gender-neutral pronouns may seem awkward, and are not typically found in everyday life for speakers of modern english, however there is legal precedent for their use. In this case, the user complained that references to gender were unnecessarily providing personal information about them. Please see Gender-neutral pronoun. The way that you edited it is also perfectly acceptable. There are many other edits I made that were for the same reason.... check my edit history if you want to go and prettify those edits as well. JERRY talk contribs 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I understood your edit but it made for a VERY awkward read, almost impenetrable (certainly for the casual reader). I don't think I "prettified" it, I made it legible (I also caught a "her" that you missed). I didn't mean to be rude with my edit summary, although in retrospect I suppose I was. I apologize for clicking "Save page" a little too quickly. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Young and Restless (hip hop band)

My mistake on the link -- allmusic.com kept crashing Firefox, and I grabbed the wrong URL. I've added the correct links on the talk page, including one showing that they charted. I'll remove the hoax tag again (assuming that's okay with you), and add some refs to the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, that's totally cool. I'm glad to hear that it's actually not a hoax. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A.M. (band)

I removed the notability question because there is a sufficient amount of notable sources to verify the band's existence and legitimacy.--Destroy1998 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

DiGiTs (band)

I removed the notability question because, again, there are enough notable sources. I also changed the capitalization because that is the proper way to spell DiGiTs, which is a proper noun.--Destroy1998 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners, follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" i.e. capitalize the first letter and the rest are lower-case. As with A.M., I disagree with you regarding notability but will not revert your edit. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Ferreira

Good work (in progress...) on Jorge Ferreira! Besides de notability, credibility and others issues of that sort, I do belive that the article is too long. By the way, and of course you can take my statements as my own bias, this Ferreira is almost completely unknown in Portugal. Oh! And 81.65.196.240 has just erased some of your tags. Keep up your good work! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've been in kind of a "holding pattern" over the long weekend, replacing tags as needed. When I get a longer stretch of time where I can edit (possibly later today), I'm going to start slimming it down and getting rid of the year-by-year entries so it's more in keeping with Wikipedia format. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Love in This Club

All of the information in the section that I added is true. I work in the industry and - in fact - my radio station was one of those that got hit with a Cease and Desist letter. Jive had no plans to release the record until at least mid-March, prior to Polow Da Don leaking it to the station in Atlanta. But, once he leaked the record, radio began playing it (quite frequently, in a few cases) and Jive had to hurry the release of a mastered version and they moved up the adds date. If you'd like, I can provide you with Mediabase chart statistics and other information to back up the information.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/rastabolio/SCREENCAP-MEDIABASE-USHERfeatYOUNGJ.jpg

Thanks!--InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not questioning whether or not the information is true (I have 20 years in the industry under my belt so I know how things go). The fact remains that without a verifiable reference from a reliable source to back it up, it shouldn't be added to the article. That you saw the C&D notice makes that part original research; much of the rest is [speculation (informed speculation but speculation nonetheless). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would challenge the word "research," as used in this instance. It's not as if I'm telling a story about how I think things happened, or should have happened. It is a fact that Jive served C&D letters on this record, due to A) the version of the record that was leaked was an unmastered copy and B) it was well in advance of their plans for this project.
However, the fact of this situation remains that you do have a valid point, but maybe not under the terms that you're presenting it. I will concede that the information, while interesting, may not be all that relevant to anyone reading the article that is not familiar with our industry.
That being said, I would still like to see the information left in the article, BUT I will support whatever decision that you - as the more senior to Wikipedia between the two of us - feel is in the best interests of the article and the encyclopedia as a whole.
Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that you're interpreting facts here (see WP:OR for what I meant by "original research"). The bottom line is that you're adding information that has not been published in a reliable source thus can't be proven beyond your claim that you saw the C&D notice (again, I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you can't prove it; tangentially, you can only say for certain that your radio station got the C&D notice). This fails WP:V and although you're not reaching a conclusion it's still based on what you know not what you can show. Surely something like this will get a mention soon in Billboard or FMQB or some such industry publication at which point it can be added to the article. Thanks for understanding. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that and support your decision. I would expect to see that information hit a verifiable source sometime in the near future. If it doesn't, oh well, right?  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CobaltBlueTony™!

I feel like answering every time I see your talk link! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fat Joe's Mixtape

Why did you put it up for deletion even after i posted a reference?Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The reference you added shows that Fat Joe said he was going to make a mixtape; that doesn't make the article notable. WP:MUSIC says that most mixtapes are not notable—you'll need to find a lot more references than one mention to show notability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Chasse and comment, if you care to. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • If anyone objects, let me know; otherwise my only intention is to hurry up the decision either way. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't expect anyone will complain but it's always a possibility. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Austin/Beyond Aston; Doopefish/Dopefish

Thought you might be interested in this. That article needs a speedy. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It figures; I had it pegged for a joke of some sort. Boy, he sure showed us, huh? (Or, alternately: Boy, somebody sure showed him, huh?) —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

;) And so fast! You must have it watchlisted. Peace, delldot talk 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I spied it on the new music article list, had my CSD for non-notability declined, started to list it for AfD and discovered it had already had one. But whatever works, right? —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Love In this Club

Oh, okay. My bad. Thanks for letting me know. --FSX-2007 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. I think everyone around here learns something new every day; I know I do. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ace of Base AfD closure

I suppose you can if like; however, this is an album from a definitively notable band, and it was decided that there was enough verifiable information to discount WP:CRYSTAL. GlassCobra 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I was thinking more along the lines of "notability is not inherited". —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from A.WOLF

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from A.WOLF, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Addendum: There was an AfD for the article in May of 2006 which it passed. -- Atamachat 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the head's up, embarrassed that I missed that. Back to AfD, then. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Boss of all Bosses

Sorry I didnt know. But I really want the arrictle to stay. Piazzajordan2 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD removed on Go DJ!

Another editor removed your {{prod}} on Go DJ!. Do you plan on taking this to AfD? If you do, I'll vote to delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've been following through with AfDs on all the future-album prods I've been dropping, except when references are added to show notability, which never actually happens. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that I take a look at the improvements, it seems ok for the moment. The references aren't the greatest but aren't unreasonable (and at least they're recent) and a second single just dropped this week. As long as speculation is kept in check, I don't think it's too bad. Of course, if six months from now there's still no scheduled release date, I'll revisit my thinking. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Mirror (album)

No problem. I tend to hold fairly rigorous standards for unreleased albums, but this one is definitely notable. Spellcast (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Future albums are fine as long as it's reliably sourced. But unfortunately people tend to add cruft like rumoured tracks. If you want to start a wikiproject, WP:COUNCIL/P would be the place to start. There's no guarantee I'll be deeply involved, but I do support removing unsourced albums when I see them. Spellcast (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the pointer. And I agree, correctly sourced articles are fine. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

Hi, thanks for the message! I am very interested in cleaning up wikipedia. And removing out of date tags is very much a part of that. I will certainly take a look at the project and remove any out of date tags i find whilst i'm doing my counter vandalism patrolling. Thanks and have a nice day. TheProf | Talk 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Regarding the page Eating's Not Cheating (2005), which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of it is a recently-created redirect page resulting from an implausible typo or misnomer, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not recently-created and has a page history for a merged page which must be preserved for GFDL attribution reasons. If you still want the page to be deleted, please use the WP:RFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Doy! I knew that—my bad. Thanks for reminding me; I got a little too "housecleaner-y". —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

double album

He said there is over 90 minutes and not much they wanted to cut down, so if that is the case it would have to be a double album if they chose not to cut a lot down.--E tac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Which is original research on your part. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It is original research that 90 minutes will not fit on one disc?--E tac (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No. It is original research to say that they might put out a double disc. You're extrapolating from what was actually said. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Saying that IF NO MATERIAL IS CUT FROM THE OVER 90 MINUTES that they have it would result in their first double album is hardly original research, but a fact.--E tac (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • First off, settle down; there's no need to get excited. Secondly, you seem to have a difficult time seeing the difference between reporting what was said and drawing a conclusion from what was said. Just let it go—it's fine the way it is. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC proposal

As someone who has previously been involved in WP:MUSIC policy discussion. I would much appreciate your input on this proposal if possible. --neonwhite user page talk 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Wray

You recently undid an edit to Nicole Wray remiving an AfD template, with the edit summary "—rv AfD tagging with no follow-through" Since the article is currently listed at AfD, and because it is inappropriate to remove an AfD without it being closed, I have rolled back this edit. -- RoninBK T C 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That's weird—the editor who placed the tag never opened an AfD. (20 seconds later) OK, I just checked and I see that the AfD was opened by an editor but the tag was placed on the article by an IP; my mistake. I guess it doesn't matter anyway since the AfD was almost immediately closed as a bad-faith nomination. Still, I'll be more careful next time. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF?!?

The top part where the infoBox is, I am COMEPLETELY innocent I don't know how the fuck that happened, everything else is my work, I DO NOT vandelise! YaBoiKrakerz

  • That's cool, I know I've seen you around so I didn't figure you had done it intentionally but I did want to bring it to your attention. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly known for editing my favorite rap artists articles (Like The Game and Too Short), my favorite rock bands (like RATM, DragonForce and Sum 41), videogame characters (like Mario and CJ) and my favorite movies like 300.

The funny thing is, is that I saw 300 not 2 hours ago... my goal is watch 300 300 times, LOLOLOL!!! YaBoiKrakerz

  • Right on. I do a mix of editing things I'm interested in and housekeeping-type stuff (it's been mostly housekeeping lately). Good luck with your 300 aspirations—it's important to set goals for yourself! —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanx for your support! YaBoiKrakerz

No, no man...lol

You didn't mess up, I revised it then added the ref to it. It wasn't added to the page before. lol.Y5nthon5a (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

U Need 2 Stop

I would aprreciated if you didn't spread lies about me. I have told you that Make It Hot is certified gold. My new album will coming in spring. Elektric Blue was released only in Japan, and I leaked Lovechild myself. Also I have my InDepenDance Day: Volume Two mixtape following up the release of the album. Nicole Wray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.80.193 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I haven't spread any lies about anyone. The problem is that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and backed up by reliable sources so, for example, if a gold record doesn't show up in the RIAA certification database, we can't include it in the article. If you are Nicole, maybe you could talk to your publicist and have him/her give you copies of all the press you've received and you could pass the information along here. Good luck. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hello Control is sockpuppet of User talk:Cloudz679. I don't not need proof to back this up, thats the truth. Also, you don't talk to my favorite artist that way because what she said was true. On top of that, you need to check your own damn self because you ain't all you think you are. Now you can hello that Cloudz679. 4.129.66.200 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • And I nominate articles for deletion as Hello Control and then !vote against their deletion as Cloudz679 just to make it appear that I am two different people. Man, I am so clever! But you're even more clever because you saw through my ruse. I tip my hat to you, clever person. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

Image:Music barstar.png The Music Barnstar
Awarded for exceptional work "cleaning out the cruft" from numerous album articles. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

Please check your facks before making comments about artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.85.123 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Crybaby" by Mariah and Snoop was #1 sales and R&B/hip hop single the week of jan 20, 2001. I got all facts from: (www.billboard.com.. search damizza) if you add up all the weeks charts including whats on my label i'm over 500 weeks on the charts. closer to 700. And, the Chuck Phillips article is all over the internet. "Airplay raises disclosure issue" was the LA times article by chuck phillips. And pls take that picture off! Do you want a sales breakdown?? -Damizza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonborne (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • On Wikipedia, component charts like the sales ones are only used if the song doesn't chart on the main chart (see WP:CHARTS for more info). I'm not the one that put the picture up in the first place. Do you have a better one we can use? Stuff like "over 500 weeks on the charts" is unencylopedic and more like press release-type writing and doesn't belong here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • all good thank you for your time. I removed the picture. But it popped back up. how do i put one up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.86.99 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • To upload a picture, go here and follow the instructions. Public domain is best but copyrighted pix can be used, it's just more complicated is all. I don't have a lot of experience adding photos but if you have any questions I'll try my best to answer. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Cassie (singer)

If I'm not mistaken, the IP editor was trying to replace a single section while keeping the potential BLP issues blanked. It looks like you've restored all of the content that led to their block yesterday. I could be wrong, I haven't looked all that closely, but you might want to double check your latest reversion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The version I reverted to was a more recent redaction that I executed yesterday. The original redaction was maybe a little bit overboard, deleteing more than really necessary. I also "signed" unsigned comments that were redacted so anyone who just has to know what was removed can go find the diff. Really, that talk page is a mess and should be archived or something; so little of the content belongs on an article's talk page. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please resolve this. [1] -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I want to be in the middle of this? I didn't even start the reversion thing. The editor is evading a block and violating WP:BLP. Do you have any suggestions? The IP has had the policy explained to them repeatedly and yet they still claim to not understand. I'm all ears. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but be quietly. An administrator blocked the page, so any IP contributes. -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Love Deletion

Uhh, maybe merging might be a better idea. I've been looking for some good sources to keep it notable, but can't seem to find any. However, I believe the article is important to the artists history, so it would be better to merge it rather than delete it completely.LoveLaced (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any content that is verifiable and from a reliable source can be added to the Fefe Dobson article—no permission necessary. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo Tony/Control, I have responded to your request on my talkpage. Incidentally, there is plenty of coverage of the topic in reliable sources easily accessible through Google News. (http://news.google.ru/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Sunday+Love%22+fefe). Regards, Skomorokh 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'm typing as fast as I can! :-) Shocking Blue (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comments

As someone previously involved in a discussion re this issue, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Release_dates_listed_pre-release. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for the notice. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy Albright

(copied from AfD discussion) Most of his credits seem to be his own material. The only ones that I can see that were singles are "Oh Carolina" by Vince Gill and "That's Enough of That" by Mila Mason; the rest seem to have been cut either by Albright himself or by non-notable artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Musical scholar"

I never said that I considered myself to be a "musical scholar." I simply said that I've been in the music industry for seven years, including the last year as a Music Director for a CHR/Rhythmic radio station, and I've never heard the term used. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you were unsure of the term, you should have done some research first, or dropped a note at WP:MN. "Conscious hip hop" is a term that has been in use for well over a decade. Wikipedia is loaded to the gills with made-up genres and sub-sub-genres but just because you hadn't come across the term in your limited mainstream experience does not mean it's not notable. There's a great big world of music out there and if you judge it all from the perspective of a pitifully narrow-minded and short-sighted mainstream radio station (that's not a crack at your station—it's a crack at all mainstream stations) then you're doing Wikipedia a disservice. Sorry if this diatribe come across as harsh but I'm very passionate about music—it's my life—and you struck a nerve. Peace —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 10:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi-Fly

This about the Hi-Fly article. How is not the SoundClick page a reliable source to put JD Era on his production credits when you can go there and listen to the track and even hear JD Era mentioning his name multiple times? Also why would you take off his website's discography as a reference now when after many of your earlier edits you left it there? Why have you put "citation needed" on couple specific artists and not after the sentence or the paragraph? Seems very inconsistent. I admit that I'm new to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingi (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Both SoundClick and the Hi-Fly website are primary sources (i.e. the subject of the article controls what is there) so it's not a very reliable source. For example, you could put on there that you produced a number one single for Michael Jackson but that wouldn't make it true. Similarly, the SoundClick song link is unreliable. If it appeared on the artist's own website (JD Era, not Hi-Fly), that would be reliable (because it's the artist's own website saying "this is my song"). Primary sources are ok for some things (biographical info, etc.) but other types of info should be confirmed with other sources. The citation requests are on the artists' names because there is partial sourcing (some artists have references, others don't). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. That helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DISCOG

Cool man, glad I stepped up to the plate when I did! I saw the proposal thingie a while back, but I didn't notice the actual page until today. I was kind of wondering what the hold up was... Anyways, hopefully we can get this bad boy off the ground soon. Still alot of technical behind-the scenes type stuff to work on, but feel free to start tagging discogs with {{WikiProject Discographies}}, and inviting people to join (no fancy template for that). This should be a good little project, me thinks. Drewcifer (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is actually perfect timing—I've been paring down my watchlist over the last week or so and once a few more things get settled, I'll have plenty of time to devote here. I'm moving soon so I'm not allowed to spend much time on WP this weekend, however. This will be the first WikiProject I've really participated in so feel free to drop suggestions. Thanks again for picking up the ball and really running with it. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankee discography

Hello, I just want to notify you that there is no need for speedy deletion of the page Frankee discography. AFD would be more suitable. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankee

Why dont you just leave my articles alone. They are perfectly fine, have sources and they are real singles. Just because they are not well known does not change anything. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive474

I've interacted with both Exclusive474 and Surfer-boy94. I agree that they seem to have similar interests, but I truly doubt they are socks. What specifically makes you think that they are the same person?Kww (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly Accused

Hello i just want to comment on the recent accusations of sockpuppetry. They are wrong and I admit that there is alot of evidence linking our accounts together, but Exclusive_474 is my brothers account who uses it sometimes, however he is not very experienced with wikipedia. As for Piece-of-Me-08 he is my best mate who is also inexperienced to wikipedia, but he wants to get better, and as for Insomniatic_999 I honestly do not have a clue who that is. The other account Motion-In-The-Ocean is my cousin, who uses it whenever he is at my house. I hope you have the strength to believe me. Thanks, Surfer-boy94 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am Exclusive_474 and I do not know how to do things on wikipedia properly. I don't really know much about wikipedia and my brother told me about sockpuppetry and how he is being accused of it. It is not right, as I am honestly Surfer-boy94's brother. Exclusive 474 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wrongly Accused

Hi I have reviewed that, so now do you believe me that I am not a sockpuppet? But I just don't see how fair it is for me to be responsible for my family and friends actions on wikipedia, because they use it on the same computer. Thanks. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

Hello I have heard that I am being accused of being a sockpuppet. This is untrue information, as I am Surfer-boy94's second cousin. We do not really see much of each other and I only go on this computer when my family is at his house. He probably hasn't mentioned me as we do not see much of each other and he does not get on with me at all, and by the way sometimes my friend also uses wikipedia on this computer on her user: Insomniatic_999. I hope this helps. Girls alouds biggest fan (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to University of Dayton Ghetto

While I appreciate your efforts to improve the article University of Dayton Ghetto, you seem to have overlooked the fact that the list of special interest houses you removed was both sourced and highly wikilinked. However, there is a discussion concerning its removal on the talk page. You are more than welcome to discuss the removal of the section with the other editors on the page, but please do not make large changes to a stable article without prior discussion. In the meantime, I have reverted your removal of the section. Thank you. Newsboy85 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The "discussion" appeared to consist of one person objecting to the list of houses being restricted to frats and sororities, and you, the apparent "owner" of the article, saying you had been considering removing the list. Your comment—the last on the subject—was made at the end of February; I'd say the discussion is cold and dead at this point. Since no one had argued in favor of keeping the list, I removed it. And, despite your claims to the contrary, the list is not referenced (a few external links notwithstanding). I reiterate what I said in my edit summary—the list is unencyclopedic, unsourced, and crufty. There is nothing that indicates that those houses are notable in the least. It's really more of a directory of the houses of organizations in the area. That the organizations are wikilinked is irrelevant. I strongly urge you to undo your reversion of my edit. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As you pointed out, I do agree with you that the list should probably not be there. I will also admit that I was surprised to see another active editor that was not vandalism, as I have been the only editor working on the article for quite a while, though it was started well before I was even a wikipedian. However, there is a source for the entire section - reference 20 points to a University of Dayton Web site with this list of special interest houses. In any case, give me a while, and I'll get the article updated again and get rid of the list once and for all. (If you check the history, you'll notice the list was quite a bit more ... erm ... informal than it is now, so this shortened version was the compromise from last year.) Newsboy85 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko?

If this is him, he's being smart enough to stay away from long talk-page posts. What do you think? Kww (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)