User talk:AngelOfSadness/Archive 10

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year! Acalamari 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and Happy New Year to you too. Hope you have a good one. :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel discography

Hi there. Would you be interested in co-nominating Tokio Hotel discography at WP:FLC with me? I ask because when looking at the page history, I see you're the one who has been keeping things up-to-date and wotnot, where as I just came along and did some formatting and wrote the Lede. I think it has a pretty good chance of being promoted. Let me know, and I'll set up a FLC page tomorrow. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I think it is ready for a nomination especially with all of the alterations you made but I'm basing this by comparing it with other featured discographies and it has (I think anyway) all of the required material. Just so you know, I don't have any experience in nominating articles/lists for FA/FLC so I don't know much about the process but I am already reading up about it so there's no major worries :). So go ahead and set up the FLC page when you have the time and I'll add my co-nom as soon as possible. Also thank you so much for making all those alterations and additions because if you hadn't come along, I would still be working on the page for months more and it probably would still be no where near a nominating FLC state. AngelOfSadness talk 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, the FLC is live, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tokio Hotel discography. You don't have to leave a nominating comment, but you can if you want. Just look through WP:FLC to see how nominations are run, and basically any comments that are left at our FLC page, either carry them out or explain why not. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As no-one had commented yet I added the co-nom anyway. Now it's time to play the waiting game ... Oh, the waiting game sucks, let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos. :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

hey wats up you have not sent back yet why not --CPARKER (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)~~!@!TH3*PUPP3T*M@$T3R!@!~~

Sorry, I haven't been online that much as I said here. AngelOfSadness talk 19:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Currently the masses are trying to get the "new third single" mentioned on Circus (Britney Spears album) and Circus (song). Clearly it is not a reliable source but many newbies and general fanboys are pushing for it's inclusion. I think the articles need semi/full protection at this point, I'm like the only editor that tries to keep them clean. — Realist² 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also an attempt to create the article, despite it's very dubious claim of being a single. — Realist² 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm very replying to the point where the articles have been protected, reliable sources have been found and the articles unprotected again. I have the new page on my watchlist so I'll be sure to revert any questionable edits if it helps. AngelOfSadness talk 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the creation of the single was blocked until third party sources could be found, we have them now though. — Realist² 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. I know that because the article is now created, rumours are probably going to be inserted at a rapid rate and when it becomes ridiculous where nothing can be verified by reliable sources, I'll semi-protect the article that's if I'm online of course :). For now it seems to be not so neutral POV edits but if that gets too out of control (like edits by other editors straight after a revert) I'd consider protecting then aswell. AngelOfSadness talk 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel Discography Part II

Hi,

I read your comments on my edits of the Tokio Hotel discography but I have a few remarks. Quite a lot actually so brace yourself :-)

First of all, I find it very strange that the Tokio Hotel EP and Scream America! EP have to be included in their singles discography. Normally, artists have a separate list of EP's that is not mixed with the singles discography (see for instance the Coldplay discography). Including them in the singles discography seems to imply that somewhere out there, there's an actual song called 'Tokio Hotel' or 'Scream America' while this is clearly not the case. Besides, the song Scream was actually released as 'Scream' in countries like Portugal and Italy... So to me it seems more obvious to include actual songs in their singles discography and then make a separate list of EP's.

Then, about the combination of the translated version of their songs. I thought it was the usual thing to do since discographies for major artists like Enrique Iglesias and Shakira also do it like that. Besides, if we don't combine translations their singles discography will, in a few years time, be endless since it'll include every single twice (once in German and once in English). Take for instance Ready, Set, Go! and Übers Ende der Welt: they are exactly the same song, released in the same year with the exact same video.... Why not combine them? The articles about these two versions of this one song have also been merged into one article a long time ago. The only translations I wouldn't merge are those for which a completely new video was shot such as Monsoon.

I also believe that the #84 position for Monsoon for the US should be deleted since this is a reference to the Billboard Pop 100, while it is customary that columns simply titled US only include references to the Hot 100 and the Bubbling Under. If you make it a column about the Pop 100, then I believe the Bubbling Under rating for R,S,G! should be removed since the Bubbling Under completes the Hot 100 and not the Pop 100.

I would also like to make a case for the inclusion of the Netherlands in the chart position table since more of their singles charted here than almost any other non-German-speaking country in the world, due to the fact that some of their German-language singles charted here. (And yes, it's my home country aswell :-P) If you need to ditch a country because of a limit then ditch something like Finland where only one of their songs charted.

Oh, and why are 'Wir schliessen uns ein' and '1000 Meere' no longer in the list? They where released as double a-sides, which are usually included in discographies.

That's it! Thanks for reading! (81.70.148.59 (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

First things first deleting the EP's from the discography and not re-adding them in their own section was making the list incomplete hence why I reverted you as you were removing offical releases without so much as an explaination in the edit summary and so I sent you a message on that. Now that you mention it, it would be better for the EP's to be in their own section (I will take care of that after I post this message).

I myself don't have that much experience in discography building to Featured status but the editor who did make the edits to make it Featured standard is one of two people who promote Featured Lists, actually belongs to WP:Discography and has featured lists himself so I trust that they know what they're doing.

Secondly, the Enrique and Shakira discographies (which are both start discographies like most discographes) are not Featured lists therefore taking them as an example here is a bad idea seeing as the Tokio Hotel dsicography was upgraded per the critera and while being compared to other featured discographies. Although different versions of songs (be it covers or translations) are blended into the same articles as you can see from Tokio Hotel articles as well as Shakira articles but the chart positions on each version is not blended into each other just to prevent confusion (in a Tokio Hotel single article were both version of the song were released in the same year, there are numbers next to chart positions and a note written underneath the table to indicate which version charted in which chart but I don't know of it's effectiveness). It would be like saying "Rescue Me" reached number 1 in Germany and Austria but it didn't as it wasn't even it's own single because "Rette Mich" did chart and chart websites clearly distingush the two versions for this reason. Or even blending the chart positions of Hallelujah together (three versions of the song entered the UK Top 40 within the same week this past Christmas so obviously things needed to be seperate there). If we were to blend the two, it would mean adding a whole load of notes under the table but a lot of the time readers tend to miss out on the notes so seperating the two versions is much easier for readability. It doesn't make sense just to seperate versions of the song with different videos as it is not a Videography listing chart positions on charts - it's a discography listing primarily of discs (singles, albums etc.) and their main chart positions. It has happened that in one country, both versions of the track charted unlike a Shakira versions were only one version of the song would have charted/released so there is little confusion for the Shakira tracks but the same cannot be said for Tokio Hotel.

I'll remove the US Pop 100 entry of Monsoon as you are right about that actually. However it must be said that the Dutch charts were not the only Western European chart to be removed from the singles table - both Belgian charts, Norwegian chart were also removed and I believe a lot of Tokio Hotel singles have charted on those charts. Also excluded were the South American chart positions like Columbia and Costa Rica. The guidelines for discographies states that the artist or band's home country comes first, followed by an English-language alphabetical ordering of countries (with the option to prioritize English-speaking countries before others). Hence why the three German speaking charts are in there along with the English speaking ones. Usually that part of discographies tend to try and show a diverse range of national charts. We know Tokio Hotel have had hits in Western Europe but not all countries are listed in favour of putting in one or two Scandinavian countries, a few English Speaking countries etc. It you look at Featured status No_Doubt_discography#Singles, only two countries from Western mainland Europe are mentioned and you can guess it wasn't because they only charted in two ever but if you look at the peak positions for Hey Baby, they actually charted on eight Western mainland European countries with that song alone. If you look at the No Doubt Discography, 4 of the charts are American (No Doubt home country), 2 of them are Austrailia/New Zealand charts and the remaining three are European - all charts listed cover a worldwide perspective by not staying in on one continent and listing every peak on every chart in that continent. That's what is trying to be done with the Tokio Hotel discography, to give a brief overview/range of the countries they have charted and listing all European countries they have charted wouldn't be much of a range considering they have charted further afield. Beside the discography already has twelve charts listed (the recommened is a maximum of ten so it's already pushed past the limit). That's my interpretation of it anyway.

Do you perhaps have a source saying the two were released as double a-sides as only the main a-side was ever mentioned on charts/discographies? "Wir schliessen uns ein" and "1000 Meere" never charted independently of the A-sides. I have two versions of the "An Deiner Seite" single both which features "1000 Meere", but it is not written "An Deiner Seite..."/"1000 Meere" (one actally has a sticker saying it's a brand new and an unreleased track in German, however nothing about an a-side) on the cover where double a-sides would for example notable double a-sides like Day Tripper, Fat Bottomed Girls and Yellow Submarine (song). Even in the article about the "1000 Meere" video", from the Wednesday 7th of November 2007 edition of Bravo DE, calls "1000 Meere" a "Zusatz-Track" which means a bonus track. An A-side has two featured songs unlike a normal single which has one featured track and additional/bonus/ tracks which includes tracks that are songs that had not yet been completed at the time of the album's release which is what "1000 Meere" is. Hence why I wouldn't consider that particular one a double a-side along and the same goes for "Wir Schliessen uns ein". Both songs have videos, but it doesn't make them double a-sides as both were made outside of the main albums recording, didn't feature on any chart themselves etc. Also allmusic.com doesn't mention them in with the Tokio Hotel singles/Eps whereas all a-sides (including double a-sides) for The Beatles are mentioned on the allmusic.com list of singles and EPs.

Hopefully this clears everything up and if you are confused over something mentioned in this reply, feel free to ask and I'll try to clarify my comments better :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another note: By the looks of it Scream America was actually a single - on it's cover it says "Scream America - Limited Edition - 2 - Song Single" so by that alone I'll leave it out of the EP section (which I'm currently adding). AngelOfSadness talk 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(81.70.148.59 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)) Thanks for answering and clearing all that up! I just assumed that discographies of people like Shakira and Enrique would be according to the rules. But clearly I was mistaken.

I'm still a bit unsure about the whole 'Scream America' vs. 'Scream' debacle since your own link also states under track-listing that the song included on this 'EP' is called 'Scream' and not 'Scream America'. So I would say that 'Scream America' is just the name of the EP, not the song.

About 'Wir schliessen..' and '1000 Meere': I more or less thought that having a video automatically made them double a-sides but again: I seem to be mistaken.

And well, I'll just have to accept the deletion of the Netherlands, won't I :-)

Sure the reason I merged the English and German translations was because of the Shakira and Enrique articles where formatted that way but I did make sure to find the merger discussions on those articles and the reasoning behind it before I did the same to the Tokio Hotel articles. But editors on those Discographies do try to have them to a presentable and hopefully verfiable state (as most discographies tend to be) but as no one (I think) has been cuurently trying to up the Discographies status to Featured status (where layout of song titles is important) I guess that's why. There are no set in stone guidelines for translations, hence why no one know what to do with the discographies where the a multiple versions to one song, but it is generally accepted that translations be treated as covers in that both are in the same article but get their own chart.

Scream America! is just the name of the single, just like double a-sides where both songs are in it's title, seperated by a "/" but you don't find a track on the single with the two songs mashed together - they are seperate. The title of a single might not be the name of a song on the disc itself. The first song on the single is Scream and maybe they called the single that because their first US release had no proper title and so were trying to make an impact on the US with this release by having a distinctive title. If the single was called "Scream" it could have very easily been mixed up with the "Scream" album and the "Scream" single (which released around the same time). Anyway Scream America! is way too short to be considered an EP - EPs have double the amount of tracks on a standard single (Scream America has two songs not 4 or 8 like an EP) and EPs are over ten minutes in length (whereas Scream America is well under 10 minutes long). Also EPs are too long to chart on singles charts (yet Scream America charted on the singles chart in Italy). And then the artwork itself confirms that it is a single so...There's all the reasons why Scream America is technically a single (even amazon.co.uk, allmusic.com etc. refer to it as a single) but because there are sources which say it is an EP, it's hard to know what to refer to it as.

Many artists make videos for songs that may never be intended to released as singles. Take CKY's second album Infiltrate.Destroy.Rebuild where the made a video for every song on the album (11 songs on the album) and yet there were only two (If I remember correctly) singles and the remaining videos (for the non-singles) have aired on the American MTV2. Beck did the same for his album The Information. Usually, like I said, if it is a double a-side all chart sites and offical websites would refer to both songs in the title (as the title and coverart itself would suggest).

Unfortuately yes, I'm afraid although thank you so much for your understanding and for discussing this as, most of the time, editors new to editing discographies/song articles would add unsourced and unverifable content and would continue to re-add it in over a number of months despite efforts by other editors to discuss the edits. AngelOfSadness talk 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

five leaf clover page

just wondering why you deleted the page i made for Five Leaf Clover. please let me know! Cougars2012 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article did not assert the importance or significance of the group therefore was deleted (which happens to all similar articles per WP:CSD#a7). If the group meets any of the critera outlined in Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, feel free to re-create the article but make sure to include verifiable and reliable sources to back up claims of importance/significance. AngelOfSadness talk 19:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ok thank you very much..ignore it if it comes up again. i'm going to make it, take a screenshot and delete it. thanks again Cougars2012 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's laughter for you! Laughter promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Editing to you too! :D AngelOfSadness talk 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ring frei (LaFee album)

Can you add the cover from here, how you have done here? Thank you, your Daniel from Germany. --Daniel 1992 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok sure. But I'll upload it tomorrow as I don't have much on-line time today. AngelOfSadness talk 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but don't forget it please ;) --Daniel 1992 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - uplaoded and added to the article. But I had to use austraincharts.at as the source for the image as the official website image was far too large, in terms of resolution, for the non-fair use image rationale. But other than that no problems  :) AngelOfSadness talk 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Daniel 1992 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Abingdon, Oxfordshire

I made a change to the Abingdon, Oxfordshire page that was rgarded as vandalism, it wasn't. Jack fm is a real local radio station that was previously overlooked. 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkrshark123 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the editor who reverted your edit thought it was vandalism, most likely, because it was your first edit after a string of vandalism edits and reverted your edit because the radio station name, unfortuately, does sound made up and so thought it too was vandalism. In fairness there isn't exactly many well known stations named after people. Radio stations tend to be called Xfm or 109.5 fm etc. so they coud have thought you were just putting a name into the article and trying to hide it by putting fm after it. People do put factual inaccuracies like that into articles and, considering your other edits, I can see why the editor reverted your edit as vandalism. But if it's a real radio station then, it seems like it was an honest mistake. But really you should talk it over with the editor who reverted your edit. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

Please remove this from my talk page, or explain your reasoning. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here as I did not revert your edit nor did I warn you about your edit so I don't know why your asking for my reasoning for the mesaage/revert when I had nothing to do with it. You really should contact Daniel 1992 to discuss this as, by the looks of it, he warned/reverted you. AngelOfSadness talk 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi AngelOfSadness, I've sent an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 18:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail back. AngelOfSadness talk 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As if on cue, it's been sent back to you. :D Acalamari 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Friends

I do not wish to be rude but my best friend and I have been watching this show since we were babies and I think that you are being harsh by saying I cannot come to the conclusion that we are the biggest fans of friends. Sincerely Dani97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani97 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people are fans of Friends but are they listed on the article no because it's not hard facts that are actually about the show. The article is about the show not the fans hence your edit was reverted AngelOfSadness talk 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Brawn118

Hey, this is User:Brawn118, I'm really unhappy that my page has been deleted, and I am willing to change the comments I made about certain people. If I stop the personal attacks, do you think you could redeem my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brawn118 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But with the personal attacks about other people on the page and the fact that the help desk got a complaint about the attacks it had to be deleted. You can however re-create the page yourself, but of course, if it contains any disparaging material about another person it will again be deleted and you may risk being blocked for making the attacks. Usually only articles that were deleted for not asserting notability and the like can be un-deleted in the usersnamepsace but as your userpage was mainly an attack page those deleted revisions of the page will have to remain deleted. AngelOfSadness talk 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

not me

i didnt edit that stupid page i swear, i dont even know what vile valo is anyway, leave me alone already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.196.254 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That message is over a year and a half old. It's most likely that you either have a shared IP or a dynamic IP so that message was actually for someone else who had made that edit who was using that IP address in July 2007 (as you can see here. AngelOfSadness talk 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Leövey Klára Secondary Grammar School

You deleted Leövey Klára Secondary Grammar School as a blatant copyright infringement. I edited an earlier version of the article and I think while it may have started out as a copyvio, it was edited substantially. Could you please take another look at the article and consider restoring it if it isn't as copyvio or if the copyvio stuff can be removed, leaving a useful non-copyvio stub? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While you did edit it do make it less of a copyvio, the article still contained a good bulk of the exact same sentences (a lot fo the original vocabulary and sentence structure was still present) from the source website. I mean stuff like "We are a school of "the second chance" too, because at the department of adult education..." and "In our educational work environmental education..." was in still in the article and even if it wasn't a copyvio of another site it was still written in the style of an advertisement (promotion for the school as it was not written in with a NPOV) and so it could have still been speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11. Changing a few words here and there doesn't remove the copyvio as someone, who tagged it for deletion, was able to find the site which the source content was from evenFor example if you look at the first copy/pasted sentence "The predecessor of the school, Ranolder Institute was founded by Ranolder János, the bishop of Veszprém at the time, in order to give Ferencváros, which was mainly inhabited by German natives in those days, an institute to educate women in Hungarian." could have been changed to "The school was founded by Randolder János, the bishop of Veszprém, who also founded the Ranolder Institute. The school was set up to educate women in Hungarian" to make it seem less of a direct copyvio although the sample re-write could have been changed a lot further. And as the Template:Db-copyvio-notice states You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. hence why I deleted it as the article was essentially copy/pasted sentences.

Obviously I can't restore it in its previous form but I could restore it as a non-copyio stub. Let me know if you wish to go ahead with it. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Wiccan reversion

What in the hell is your problem? All I've done is simply edit grammar and removed any doubt from any pages and if your going to chastise me for that then maybe you shouldnt be an administrator... hell I don't know how to comment properly on your page so why should I be punished for trying to make the encyclopedia better? I'm sorry but please don't punish people for wanting proper grammer on the website you administrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.1 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the only reason I warned you because you replaced an entire talkpage worth of comments with this is dome (and I don't see how that is a grammatical fix but that's not the point) which wasn't helpful as talkpages are meant to be records of discussion of an article. AngelOfSadness talk 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

nightwish

why did u deleate my stuff on tuomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwish101 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it did not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view. Unsourced stuff like "greatest songwriter ever" etc. is your opinion (your point of view) not fact hence it was removed as articles have to be neutral in tone. AngelOfSadness talk 19:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Rodriguez

You asked me once a while back to let you know if anyone came by pushing Troy Rodriguez articles. AriseIsNear has been adding stuff to articles for a while now and has a TR article in his userspace. Thanks for any help you can provide. Rnb (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)