User talk:MadonnaFan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MadonnaFan, 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:Where to ask a question, 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! 

To indent your replies (which keeps discussions easy to follow), you probably want to use one or more colons (:) rather than asterisks (*) at the beginning of each paragraph.

chocolateboy 16:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

Could you please list your sources for the changes you're making to Madonna (entertainer)? Thanks. --fvw* 08:31, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

As I said on User talk:69.160.211.232, you're free to post your trivia to the article provided you don't overwrite existing content in the process. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, meaning you should try to integrate your additions into an article rather than replace what's already there. It's also helpful to back up the numbers you're quoting and changing with references, especially when you call it an "official number" (I see you've sort of done this on the article talk page, but you haven't actually pointed to where you got it; see Fww's reply at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)). Don't you think it's a bit odd to list common biographical data available elsewhere in the article (e.g. birth date and offspring) in the trivia section? Do you not find that redundant? Also note that, as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section titles should be lowercase except when the word(s) would be capitalized in a sentence, e.g. "Studio albums" but "Like a Prayer".

In any event, I hereby welcome you to the project. (Check that link for a good place to start reading up on our policies, guidelines, and tutorials.) One quick tip: It's customary to sign your talk page comments. You can do this easily by adding four tildes (~) after your comment, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. -- Hadal 08:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tips & Tricks

Hi again.

I recommend signing your talk page posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) rather than 3. That way your post is dated, which is useful for other people following the thread, and for your own reference.

It's a good idea to mark minor changes as such (by checking the "This is a minor edit" checkbox). See Wikipedia:Minor edit for more details.

There's no need to discuss every little change you make to an article on its talk page. Usually you only need to raise issues on the talk page if they're contentious or if you're asking for help or seeking consensus. The usual (and laziest :-) way to document your changes is to describe them in the Edit summary box.

If you do find it necessary to raise a topic on an article's talk page, it's generally a good idea to create a new section for it with a descriptive heading, unless that topic is already addressed on the page. That way, people checking the article's history to find out e.g. where the Career achievements facts and figures come from can tell at a glance from the table of contents, instead of having to rummage through a misnamed thread or hunt down a misplaced comment.

Please take a look at the way discussions are formatted. The comments of the original poster are usually flush left, and the comments of his or her respondent(s) are usually indented. If you're starting a discussion, your comments should not usually be indented. If you're resuming a discussion and your previous comments have not been indented, then your comments should likewise not usually be indented. Conversely, if you are replying to a top-level comment, it is customary for your replies to be indented (by prepending each paragraph with a colon).

Please peruse some of the links I provided at the top of the page for more information.

chocolateboy 10:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Madonna

It's considered bad form to delete material from talk pages. Please don't do it again.

chocolateboy 16:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my ramblings seemed to take up too much room lol. ;) MadonnaFan 16:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indentation

Please don't refactor a talk page unless you know what you're doing. (See the painfully detailed indentation instructions above.) Let me know if you need more help.

chocolateboy 06:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CélineDionFan

How many concerts have you been to? 81.226.182.193

[edit] Marking edits as minor

You seem to mark every single edit you make as minor. Don't do this.

Partly, the Wikipedia definition of 'minor' is a bit tighter than you might think. Edits should only be marked as minor if they are changes nobody is likely to have any issue about. Reserve the 'minor' flag for things like spelling fixes, grammar fixes, minor tweaks of layout, etc. Setting the 'minor' flag is supposed to mean 'nothing to see here' to other editors. You should never add, delete or replace actual content.

While I'm here, I notice a bunch of changes you made to Cadillac (automobile) that I have issue with. You replaced the first image with one that had no attribution information. Please use image licensing tags (as explained at Special:Upload) to document the terms under which an image can be used at Wikipedia. In addition, you should document the source of the image. This is especially important if the image is not yours, as I suspect this one was not. If the image is not yours, then either:

  1. You have permission to place it on Wikipedia: if so, document that permission; or
  2. You are making a claim of fair use: if so, justify that claim; or
  3. The image is out of copyright: if so, tell us why you think it is.

You also removed a sentence stating that people don't use expressions of the form "The Cadillac of <whatever>" anymore, claiming it was disparaging. Please feel free to find more neutral wording, but (a) It is, in my opinion, TRUE that these expressions are less often used than previously, and (b) it is arguable that Cadillac's reduced status these days in comparison to formerly is to blame. You didn't offer any proof, or good argument, that the statement wasn't true; you just didn't like it.

It is undeniable that Cadillac's status has fallen. The company's reputation was made with vehicles like the Cadillac V-16 in the Thirties and with vehicles like the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham of the Fifties, which cost more than any Rolls-Royce. Or even the plainer Cadillacs of the fifties and sixties. Can you honestly look at the history of Cadillac in the 1975-2000 period and say that many cars of that quality have been produced? GM diluted the Cadillac brand name by placing it on boring econobox cars scarcely different from Chevys and Pontiacs even in looks, distinguished by opulently chintzy trim. There were a few bright spots, sure, with cars such as the Allante (an underappreciated vehicle) and the more recent Arts and Sciences styled cars, and the brand seems to be seeing a bit of a 21st century renaissance, but it's still not up to the strength of the brand in former decades. —Morven 22:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you see, I love American cars. I drive a 1967 Ford Thunderbird. And it's not that I'm a Ford bigot; there are many Cadillacs I'd love to own. Even modern ones; the XLR is a very desirable vehicle, for example.
It's that very love of American cars that has me realising that many of the products produced by the US car industry since the late 1970s have been unimpressive, uninspired, unmemorable vehicles. Not all, and not completely, of course. Cadillac, in my opinion, suffered more than most. At the bottom end of the Cadillac range were vehicles that were clearly Chevys and Pontiacs in drag, and looking fairly ludicrous. At the top end were fairly luxurious but uninspired, boring vehicles. It was as if GM had resigned itself to Cadillac being the cars bought by the kind of elderly, moneyed buyer who'd patriotically always buy American. There are exceptions (I already mentioned the Allante, among others) and part of the blame has to be laid on the American car-buying public, always a bit too willing to write off the domestic product in the 1980s and 1990s.
Cadillac is definitely, seriously improving, and I certainly hope that the marque can regain its luster and seriously compete with the likes of Mercedes, Jaguar, BMW etc. There are good signs. But denying the tawdry products of the mid-1970s to mid-1990s American motor industry isn't the way forward, and Wikipedia isn't meant to be a booster for anyone's point of view. —Morven 00:42, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)