Jump to content

User talk:Abog/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This is an archive of the discussion on the talk page for User:Abog from February 16, 2008 to December 5, 2008.

Re: Bon Jovi

There is no set guideline over band articles, this has been debated many times before and it's caused massive edit wars (See: Talk:Amon Amarth for one of the worst examples)... so it's best to not go around changing them and just keep them as they are. :-) Funeral 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comments (or mine)

I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you. I wasn't aware of specifically who edited them, and my comments were mostly directed at the numerous anonymous IP editors that have been screwing with the article recently. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Aerosmith tours

A tag has been placed on Template:Aerosmith tours requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Livin' on the Edge

I've removed the category. The IP will be blocked if he doesn’t stop. Janadore (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:158logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:158logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article status

The Aerosmith article needs more references. With references, we can push the article to Good Article status or beyond. If you can help me it'd be greatly appreciated. Janadore (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks so much for the barnstar. It was very kind of you. We’ve done a lot of good work together. Actually, you deserve this barnstar. Thanks again. Janadore (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

McHenry County Bias

Thank you for the kind welcome to Wikipedia. Yes only one Democrat has been elected to the County Board which is hardly even acknowledged in the point that most most elected positions are Republican. While true for now this hardly reflects a neutral point of view. The politics section of this article basically reads like a Republican recruitment flier. Hardly a balanced point of view. It is also incredibly presumptive to assume that the imbalance of the Democratic to Republican vote was because most Republican voters were just giving John McCain a "free pass" to the nomination. How can you claim to know the intentions of every voter? If you look at the voter results you would notice that quite a large jump in Democratic ballots were pulled this could reflect a "major trend." Democratic voting in the county has increased election by election; as shown by the election victories of Mr. Kennedy, Representative Franks, and Congresswoman Bean. While general and primary election are quite different it is not to say that you can discount when dramatic things happen in a primary election. I agree that the results will be further endorsed with a general election victory, but if the point is indicating a "trend" that can be seen in a primary, general, or even a special election. Please remove the bias from your entries and I will stop having to correct them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanmctague (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith article

O, yeah! The article is ready for GA status. You did really nice work. The Walk This Way autobiography references aren't too excessive in my opinion, but we have to remove the duplicate links. Of course I'd like to see your list. Maybe I can find some refs. I'll nominate the article for GA status then on Sunday if you agree with that. Janadore (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, other world famous musician and band articles don't have that. The article is already long and I think it is not that very important. You know what I mean? The article structure should be nice as well. I think it looks better now and visitors don't have to scroll too much. The links can still be found in the template. Please have a look at WP:NPOV and let me know what you think. Janadore (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about that? Janadore (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To-do list for Aerosmith

I've created a to-do list on the talk page. Janadore (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

Yeah, you're right. What I wanted was to break it up like 1970-1974, etc. But also, just because there is a separate article doesn't mean that you shouldn't put it in the main article. So, there should be a section for awards, with a "See Also..." to the Awards article. That goes for the rest as well. Hope that clarifies everything, feel free to User talk:Kodstertalk to me if there's any misunderstanding or anything. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work and tireless contributions to Aerosmith-related articles, I award you the Special Barnstar. Janadore (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Devils Got a New Disguise.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Re: Honkin' On Bobo

i know i had a site that led to the album's confirmed platinum. i don't know why it doesn't show up on Billboard. if i can find it, i'll let you know. anyways, what's your favorite Aerosmith album? and your favorite Aerosmith songs? and, do you have any news on Steven Tyler's status?

haha, i love "Fever" it's for-sure one of my top 10 Aerosmith songs! "Voodoo medience man" is great, too. my favorite Aerosmith album is "Toys in the attic" or maybe "Honkin' on bobo" it stinks how that one is so underrated. i'm looking for the website with it's platinum staus now.

anyways, that would be so cool if Steven's helping people out in rehab. i've been hearing rumors that there wasn't any substance involved. so, who knows?


thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredick-Ballsack (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the largest mall citation

I didn't find anything when I searched for "largest outdoor mall"--obviously I needed to search for "lifestyle center" instead. Thanks for adding the citation to the Algonquin article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class Aerosmith articles

Would you like to reassess the articles? Janadore (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Category and stuff is created. Janadore (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith discography

See Iron Maiden discography, a-ha discography or the Metallica discography which is a Featured List, my point is, if this is ever goin to be a featured list it needs to be at the Aerosmith discography where it belongs. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

O yeah don't revert before we have discussed this finished okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't vandalise wikipedia and give an answear how can this become Featured List without the singles give the answear vandal. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a member of Aerosmith WikiProject and you may not be a vandal but still se the Metallica discography its much longer then the Aerosmith discograohy and it includes the singles and videos --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dud i got three oppose when i nominated the Linkin Park discography when i had their videos on their own videography page and the Aerosmith wikiproject don't control all the Aerosmith articles, The Green Day or Linkin Park wikiprojectsa aren't run like that and as you know i'm reverting your edits. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Metallica has released more released the Aerosmith and all that is on the discography so please give up, its the same with a-ha. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi please see my comments here Please discuss this first. Please also note that you and Be Black Hole Sun are dangerously close to violating the three revert rule. Keep that in mind in the future. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith setlist guide page - just a question

Aerosmith fans have been visiting Clive Newton's Aerosmith setlist website for over a decade now. The data is extremely reliable and has been invaluable to fans. The website Vindaloo (http://vindaloo.web44.net) has all of his data, plus error corrections, presented in a much cleaner and more helpful environment for Aerosmith fans and music fans. On the main Aerosmith Wikipedia page, the External Links section has links for three types of things right now: official information (aerosmith.net/.com, aeroforceone.com), music (aerosmith at rollingstone.com and lastfm.com), and news (aeronewsdaily.com, which is still just a 'fansite'). I thought it would be important to include a link to Vindaloo there to provide Wikipedia viewers with the fourth essential piece to Aerosmith information: their concert history. With nearly 2000 shows played and many, many thousands of songs played, this is information that needs to be easily accessible. I felt it would be easier for people to find it there than on the specific concert tours page. Anyway, I just was wondering what the real specific reason was that the link for Vindaloo was removed from the External Links section of the main Aerosmith page. Thanks. Futurejp (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


See

See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

re: the Aerosmith linkspammer

Hi Abog. WP:EL - do not knowingly link to websites which contain copyright violations or material which is unsourced and likely to be a copyright violation. And that website is abundant with picture and video links that are unsourced or used without proper consent. Simple as that. Poor quality, amateur fansites, like the Aeronews site, are frowned on on Wiki because 99% of them are full of copyvio. Our user will just need to understand the Wiki-rules. Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:You Can Look At.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:You Can Look At.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Image source problem with Image:You Can Look At.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:You Can Look At.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Reply to your post is on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yougiveloveabadname.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yougiveloveabadname.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LITHseal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:LITHseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Born to be my baby video screenshot.jpeg

Thank you for uploading Image:Born to be my baby video screenshot.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Taylor Rhodes

I have nominated Taylor Rhodes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Rhodes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NIU Shooting.

As you know, the NIU Shooting has been discussed at length already on the talk page. And, as discussed, the shooting is only relevant in the US, (maybe even only in Northern Illinois). Please use the 2008 talk page rather if you want to discuss it further.

I am also not sure why you called my revert vandalism, can you please explain. FFMG (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(in reply to my talk page). I started a discussion about it on the 2008 talk page hopefully we will sort out what to add an not add. If we add this event then we will need to add more notable events as well.
As mentioned before, I still think you are confusing the 2008 article and the 2008 in the United States article, the shooting simply did not make worldwide headlines. FFMG (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that the person edit-warring has been yourself, and making pleas for further discussion only after your edit-warring has been thwarted makes your message look rather silly? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The burden of evidence falls upon the editor proposing the addition or change. Others (note plural) are upholding the status quo while you are trying to change it: simple, really, something your new-found friend just below doesn't seem to understand. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it was already there or not, there's still the direct matter of your opinion being opposed by multiple editors--with your opinion, frankly, being even less convincing to me now that you've attributed it to some sort of conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is not a battleground for re-fighting old wars and your eagerness alone to discuss the same issue AGAIN--no doubt to continue until you achieve the Victory you badly want--isn't enough to convince me it's worth re-visiting the issue. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I too have been accused of "edit warring" by CalendarWatcher. He was reverting what I did, and then when I put it back, he was accusing me of all sorts of things. Would you tell me what happened with you. I would be most interested. Wallie (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I have had the exact same experiences. Unfortunately, these discussions often degenerate into all sorts of threats. Then other people, quite often well intention try to solve the "dispute". They read CalendarWatch's comments about all sorts of Wiki transgressions, and "personal attacks". In fact it is him that makes the personal attacks. You are also correct in saying he doesn't actually contribute anything much. He just reverts what you have done, and then when you put it back, he warns you about the 3RR rule and accuses you of "edit warring" and "reverting his work". These third parties often warn the innocent party and talk of a "history" bewteen the two users. It is very clear the tactics which this person is deploying. These are not acceptable and very disruptive to Wikipedia. I think that some people might even call it vandalism. Wallie (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You've reverted 2008 five times in the last 24 hours despite being amply warned. You have been reported here and may be blocked. Wrad (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violation of WP:3RR on 2008. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abog/Archive_3&oldid=1139870849"