User talk:Eduemoni/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eduemoni. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Happy Birthday
| File:18th Birthday.jpg | Hey, Eduemoni. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
Audio samples
Please use low resolution samples in the future. Dawnseeker2000 05:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:LeToya - Regret featuring Ludacris.png
Thanks for uploading File:LeToya - Regret featuring Ludacris.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
 |
Hello, Eduemoni/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Award
Thaaaank you :D Ozurbanmusic (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
+1! Thanks for the smile Eduemoni. :) Steven Walling 06:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Succession boxes
There has been a ongoing, long-running debate regarding the value of succession boxes for number-one albums and songs in articles. I got more involved in the debate in August 2010 with this discussion here. With a general feeling that most wouldn't object to their removal following that discussion, I started to remove the boxes from articles even though a true consensus was not formed. Others who did prefer them eventually took exception to their removal, and it was taken to an RFD in December last year with the discussion archived here. Because no formal consensus could be formed even following the RFC, what's done is done, meaning I no longer remove succession boxes that were there before the RFC started. Conversely, this lack of consensus means they shouldn't be added to articles anymore either. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since there is no consensus for them, how can you say that they should be added to articles? So it's okay to add them without achieving consensus, but I can't remove them because there's no consensus. How does that make sense? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the debate was on their removal from articles on which they exist, but it was also about their overall use. Consensus on their general use has never been reached or there would be policy about it; therefore, consensus will have to be reached on an article-by-article basis. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus", so that just means you can assume consensus for articles on which they've existed without being reverted. That does not mean since it has consensus on one article, it automatically has consensus on all articles. Because the debate was about their overall use (not just their outright removal), succession boxes may not be added to more articles unless consensus is reached on those specific articles. If you feel they should be added to articles on which they never existed before, I ask that you reach consensus first on those articles' talk pages or attempt to start up the discussion again on WT:CHARTS. This has gone on to an WP:RFC, so I wish you luck on that. For now, on articles for which they existed before the debate, they should not be removed, and for articles that has not had them, they should not be added. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Your RfA
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful because it seems the community doesn't currently believe you're ready for adminship. If you want to be an administrator (though I can assure you it's not very exciting), I would suggest you spend some time getting intimately familiar with policies, both those that govern admins and the more general ones and proving that you understand them through writing good-quality articles and making clueful contributions to discussions. Above all, don't take it too personally and don't see it as a judgement on your record as an editor—just because the community doesn't think you're ready for adminship doesn't mean they don't think you're a good editor and remember that many administrators (myself included) failed their first attempt at RfA. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Signature
Hi,
the signature you used here is 505 characters long, far longer than the maximum length of 255 characters allowed per consensus here on Wikipedia (see WP:SIG#Length).
Can you please shorten it significantly so that it fits within 255 characters?
Thank you, Amalthea 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Compare the following two, for example: Look almost the same, but the second is half the size and complies with the guideline:
- Amalthea 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Time limits on adminship
Hi I have proposed time limits on adminship. I'd appreciate your input! --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You listed the Mr. & Mrs. Smith score and soundtrack articles at AFD, but you tagged the articles with a prod notice. Which did you intend to do? postdlf (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I and another editor converted the tags to AFD notices. Please make sure to use the correct tags and procedures in the future, because proper notice of an AFD is required at the article itself. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to delete the articles outright, as they did sit for the required 7 days without objection. Since other editors have recommended non-deletion options at the AFDs, however, I can't. Not a major problem, as a merge would improve the project more than an outright deletion - but it would have been easier to just go straight to AFD, if that was your intent. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request on Christian Wagner, as there seems to be enough context to identify what the article is about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Appuhamy
I've declined your speedy deletion request on Appuhamy, as the context is clear. Please be more careful in future; I note a warning immediately above this one for the same issue. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've declined a speedy on Christopher H.K. Lee too, for the same reason - it was tagged as CSD:A1 (no context). However, looking at this and the two above, I see that though they were all actually tagged as A1, the edit summary said "G12" in each case - I wonder if an automated tool or script you're using might be going wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation of LLC Online Based Companies and relisting generally
Why did you think this should have been relisted? There was a good number of participants and they were completely unanimous in their judgment. What do you think is going to change? Also, you should not have relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGQuest given that you were already a participant in that discussion. There were several others that you have relisted in that same day's log that had a clear consensus in my judgment, and some that had already been relisted twice (now a third time). postdlf (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it had a clear consensus, an admin would have closed them. They can be re-listed, and if consensus was really reached they are going to be closed (either keeping, deleting, merging or redirecting). Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "If it had a clear consensus, an admin would have closed them"?? So you were just relisting any that weren't closed yet? Those particular AFDs are only now coming to the end of the standard 7 day period; that day's log isn't even in the "old" section of the AFD listings yet. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not relisting AfDs that weren't closed yet, and today is the end of the cycle of the standard 7 day period, (17 March 2011 (UTC), 24 March 2011 (UTC), 31 March 2011), this is a reason for relisting, if you check some of them you gonna see that most of them follow this re-list cycle. And I did not only re-listed them for being unclosed or end of cycle, but because they really need a common sense, with valid arguments to end a discussion. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- And by the way, if they reached a clear consensus, why didn't you delete them? Because you are able to do it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the process of closing the clear cases, and then discovered you were simultaneously relisting them. I could also revert all of your relistings and either close them or leave them open for another day or two, so why don't I do that? I don't think you really have a good grasp on this task. postdlf (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is funny (not being sarcastic or whatsoever), but I think it was a good decision, can you wait a few days? And lets see what happens, if the one I re-listed stand still, you can close it. This is going to do no harm. All right? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the process of closing the clear cases, and then discovered you were simultaneously relisting them. I could also revert all of your relistings and either close them or leave them open for another day or two, so why don't I do that? I don't think you really have a good grasp on this task. postdlf (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "If it had a clear consensus, an admin would have closed them"?? So you were just relisting any that weren't closed yet? Those particular AFDs are only now coming to the end of the standard 7 day period; that day's log isn't even in the "old" section of the AFD listings yet. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
RfA fun :)
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Good one :) Orphan Wiki 10:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
An AfD
Hi! With all due respect, can I ask why you chose to relist Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Secret_Societies_of_Duke_University? It's been relisted once before and had a bunch more votes come in, and the only keep !vote was from an IP who said keep because of more sources, all of which are still primary. It doesn't particularly matter, but I assumed it was ready to end it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've relisted it because it was inactive, but if an admin found out that a clear consensus was reached (not only through votes, but by a specific comment) this admin could close the AfD. However I saw no big deal in relisting it when I read what arguments were arisen in the discussion and everyone knows that an AfD is not closed by the numbers of votes or voters, but by the arguments that are posted in it and I saw no argument that would lead to the end of this AfD, and among others that I relisted. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ignore that, I missed that the newest posts had been put above your relisting so I mistakenly thought it had just been relisted, sorry to bother ya.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
RE:Can I cite a website that provides lyrics, which one should I use
Yeah, in the article you referred to, any interpretations of lyrics would want to cite an already synthesized interpretation (although I'd say only a brief summary is necessary). As for the other aspects of the page requiring cleanup, if you have any questions regarding formatting, feel free to ask! EWikistTalk 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
RE: Nobody's Perfect
Per WP:NSONGS a single does not automatically recieve an article. There must be detailed information in addition to: charts, covers and/or awards. At present there was no evidence (particularly when I redirected the article) that it was notable. My redirection of the article per the notability guideline for music was correct. An edit summary explaining this was provided and thus I did not act discourteously. In future cross reference the guideline and you'll see that nowhere does it say having a music video makes something notable. In general song articles should not be created until there is sufficient detail upon which the article should be made in a sandbox and then created in the mainspace upon charting. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'll find I have an excellent track record and judgement when it comes to song articles. I've been editing for over two years and have a number of GA and FL articles attached to my name. You'll actually find that more than 50% of the sources you listed e.g. Taleteja.com etc are not considered reliable. Searching "Nobody's Perfect" in google for sources does not prove media cover. However if you do want some reliable sources use these. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- So by providing you with a list of reliable sources and telling you to create the article in a sandbox first, as well as describing why I reverted your edit means I am acting in bad faith? i think you've misunderstood completely, per WP:BRD you made an edit, i reverted, hence its been discussed. you claim notability... I provided you with a link of where you could find reliable third party sources to expand the article but until the information is physically present in the article its not notable regardless of what's available on the internet, cus its not available on wikipedia. I haven't contradicted myself at all. Whilst you might have spent three months at WP:N I've spent two+ years editing song articles, writing over 12 from scracth and taking 9 to WP:GA status. I was also involved in reviewing the guideline last year. Sources like Thatgrapejuice.net (a blog) and directlyrics (a serial leak-posting website) are not reliable. I provided you with a list of reliable sources... use the ones from there. Any random website is not a reliable source. Your edits to my talkpage were defamatory because they are unfounded, you did not leave comments with WP:Good faith and as its my talkpage I have the right to remove whichever comments I like. You recent edit re-added comments I'd removed, you have no right to do so, as effectively you reverted an edit to my talk page. Another user (User talk:Kww) also agreed that your interpretation of the guideline is incorrect. Now if you want help making the article notable then that's a different story. But the next time you come to my talkpage writing essays of personal opinion, with bad faith, I will simply remove your comments and ignore them. If people have a genuine question about an edit I made or a question about a guideline etc. or wish advice I'm more than happy to give but I don't listen to those who come to give me a lecture on something which they evidently have not understood properly themselves. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not create an article by starting it in a sandbox first. And when I talked about spending three months at WP:N, I mean that I'm directly dealing with it in redirection, move and deletion discussions, because I've created several articles and collaborated within a lot, raising one of them to Good Article status (which I could not maintain due to fanbase edition). I understand properly these guidelines and there is a discussion about it on Notability (music) asking if there is in fact a real need to hit charts to own an article on wikipedia. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- So by providing you with a list of reliable sources and telling you to create the article in a sandbox first, as well as describing why I reverted your edit means I am acting in bad faith? i think you've misunderstood completely, per WP:BRD you made an edit, i reverted, hence its been discussed. you claim notability... I provided you with a link of where you could find reliable third party sources to expand the article but until the information is physically present in the article its not notable regardless of what's available on the internet, cus its not available on wikipedia. I haven't contradicted myself at all. Whilst you might have spent three months at WP:N I've spent two+ years editing song articles, writing over 12 from scracth and taking 9 to WP:GA status. I was also involved in reviewing the guideline last year. Sources like Thatgrapejuice.net (a blog) and directlyrics (a serial leak-posting website) are not reliable. I provided you with a list of reliable sources... use the ones from there. Any random website is not a reliable source. Your edits to my talkpage were defamatory because they are unfounded, you did not leave comments with WP:Good faith and as its my talkpage I have the right to remove whichever comments I like. You recent edit re-added comments I'd removed, you have no right to do so, as effectively you reverted an edit to my talk page. Another user (User talk:Kww) also agreed that your interpretation of the guideline is incorrect. Now if you want help making the article notable then that's a different story. But the next time you come to my talkpage writing essays of personal opinion, with bad faith, I will simply remove your comments and ignore them. If people have a genuine question about an edit I made or a question about a guideline etc. or wish advice I'm more than happy to give but I don't listen to those who come to give me a lecture on something which they evidently have not understood properly themselves. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't explain why you're permitted to make an article for a song where there is just two unsourced sentances and an infobox, when our guideline for songs CLEARLY states ... independent articles must be sufficiently detailed. I echo the first comments I made to you, at the time of reversion, the article was not detailed nor did it pass any of the criteria at WP:SONGS. Even if charting was not a criteria the article at Nobody's Perfect (Jessie J song) is not notable. But another non-charting song which would be considered notable would be The Way You Love Me by Keri Hilson. Take a look at that and then tell me you don't see a clear difference between that and "Nobody's Perfect" — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I created the article to serve as a wheel, and I'd progressively add information to it, but I cannot expand it right now because I have another focus, and I know clearly difference between those two articles because I'm expanding a previously uncharted song's article, When I Had The Chance, (when I was expanding it it hadn't charted on Billboard, but it did last week), and I found enough information to add on it, however I'm not focusing correctly on it to terminate its edition. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well you should note that that is the entire purpose of WP:SANDBOX... a sub-page of your userpage where you can work on an article until you've established notability then have it moved into the mainspace. You should never create an unsourced stub where with two sentences for a song. Notability criteria for songs are strict. No one is deny "Nobody's Perfect" is not a notable song but until someone creates a detailed page for it... the existing page must redirect to the album — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I put incomplete template on it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Like I stressed before... that is the PURPOSE of a WP:SANDBOX. You put incomplete tags if there is substantial information to achieve notability but not enough for a complete article. In this case there was no information at "NP" that couldn't be merged to the album. Equally with the article When I Had The Chance you ahve added information which is not relevant to the song. The whole background section is about the album, equally the image of the crash is about a crash in Greece thus nothing to do with the crash in question. Also an article like that is NOT notable. I think the issue (I don't mean this in a nasty way, more a constructive way) is that you are creating articles in anticipation of notability and not when they are actually notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my god, you are trying to in fact engage a war against me and it is giving me serious headache, you reverted and edited every single information I've added on When I Had The Chance, removing every source that you think it is not reliable when they meet Verifiability guideline. Also the article is not complete and is going through a major overhaul and you come here and tell me you are not acting o Bad Faith behalf, making me frustrated and making me think that I wasted days of work trying to write a good article. I'd never think that I'd find someone conflicting articles that are going to get improved just because of their WP:POV and WP:ILIKE and WP:IDONTLIKE. I'm not anticipating notability, the sources says for themselves, stop destroying constructive works like the effort I've raised on When I Had The Chance just because of a specific guideline or routine that YOU follow. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- You've even removed a source that I whitelisted because it refers about the conception behind the album.. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- And the information that you stated that is not relevant to the article is in fact relevant, because it refers about the conception of the album which this song is included within. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the information you added about the conception of the album mention the song the article is about in particular. Its called WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Its not edit warring at all, I'm trying to help you be a better editor by pointing out where you've made mistakes. I won't get involved any further with When I Had the Chance as its obviously a case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I was merely: a) removing information which is not relevant to the song... if the song is not mentioned once then talking bout the album is not relevant... albums contain many songs, each can be different, b) I added some {{fact}} tags where information was provided without a source and as for removing sources I did none... though I did remove a list of miscellanious external links as that is abuse of the WP:EXTERNAL... the section is for official external links e.g. the artist's youTube for the music video. Nothing to do with POV, ILIKE or IDONTLIKE. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't own the article, you are free to edit it, but collaboratively and you removed the cues. I'm expanding it, once it gets expanded, I'll polish it. I was writing it pretty much like Single Ladies and If I Were A Boy are written. I'm takin a break off right now, you gave me a headache. Thanks for your comments about my editions. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Like I stressed before... that is the PURPOSE of a WP:SANDBOX. You put incomplete tags if there is substantial information to achieve notability but not enough for a complete article. In this case there was no information at "NP" that couldn't be merged to the album. Equally with the article When I Had The Chance you ahve added information which is not relevant to the song. The whole background section is about the album, equally the image of the crash is about a crash in Greece thus nothing to do with the crash in question. Also an article like that is NOT notable. I think the issue (I don't mean this in a nasty way, more a constructive way) is that you are creating articles in anticipation of notability and not when they are actually notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I put incomplete template on it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well you should note that that is the entire purpose of WP:SANDBOX... a sub-page of your userpage where you can work on an article until you've established notability then have it moved into the mainspace. You should never create an unsourced stub where with two sentences for a song. Notability criteria for songs are strict. No one is deny "Nobody's Perfect" is not a notable song but until someone creates a detailed page for it... the existing page must redirect to the album — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I created the article to serve as a wheel, and I'd progressively add information to it, but I cannot expand it right now because I have another focus, and I know clearly difference between those two articles because I'm expanding a previously uncharted song's article, When I Had The Chance, (when I was expanding it it hadn't charted on Billboard, but it did last week), and I found enough information to add on it, however I'm not focusing correctly on it to terminate its edition. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's Perfect (Jessie J song)
Please review WP:NSONGS. Take note that we normally do not have individual articles about songs unless they have charted, won an award, or been recorded by multiple notable artists and there is enough information to write a substantial article. I don't see any sign that Nobody's Perfect (Jessie J song) passes those tests.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've reviewed WP:NSONGS, and it says that is not every song that should have an article on wikipedia, and songs that have won awards, recorded by multiple notable artists and have charted are probably notable, so far the song has garnered over 600,000 views on Youtube when its digital release is around the end of May. The article is probably going to be expanded beyond stub level, so it needs its own article, if you keep to redirect in matter of few days it is going to be edited by someone else adding more and more info, but I have enough sources to make a start assessed article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you can't demonstrate that it has charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple notable artists, I'll simply redirect it again. If there's information to add, add it to the album article.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? There is enough per cast/per review and media coverage for this song, so it can stand up as a single article. There are thousands of articles that haven't charted, haven't won awards and haven't been covered by multiple artists that are in fact notable because they received attention from the public and from reviews, IMO you are not interpreting the notability guideline correctly. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NSONGS is normally interpreted as an exclusionary guideline simply to prevent those thousands of articles from being written. Go ahead and add the information to the album article. If you can actually find so much stuff to write about that it seems too large and out of place in the album article, that is the time to consider making an exception case out of this one. There's no reason to have a stub about a song that didn't meet the criteria.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- But this song meets the criteria, it received a lot of recent coverage from independent sources, some of them are reliable, its video made a huge impact making the album charting back on top10 and there is a lot more info that can be added about it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- What information do you want to add that won't reasonably go in the album article?—Kww(talk) 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Information about its video, concept behind the song among others. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- That can easily fit in the "singles" section of the album article.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Information about its video, concept behind the song among others. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- What information do you want to add that won't reasonably go in the album article?—Kww(talk) 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- But this song meets the criteria, it received a lot of recent coverage from independent sources, some of them are reliable, its video made a huge impact making the album charting back on top10 and there is a lot more info that can be added about it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NSONGS is normally interpreted as an exclusionary guideline simply to prevent those thousands of articles from being written. Go ahead and add the information to the album article. If you can actually find so much stuff to write about that it seems too large and out of place in the album article, that is the time to consider making an exception case out of this one. There's no reason to have a stub about a song that didn't meet the criteria.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? There is enough per cast/per review and media coverage for this song, so it can stand up as a single article. There are thousands of articles that haven't charted, haven't won awards and haven't been covered by multiple artists that are in fact notable because they received attention from the public and from reviews, IMO you are not interpreting the notability guideline correctly. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you can't demonstrate that it has charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple notable artists, I'll simply redirect it again. If there's information to add, add it to the album article.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) instead of reverting the redirect and leaving me a barrage of WP:Bad faith actually use the google reliable sources search link I offered you above, and add the information to the article in a WP:Sandbox then once you believe you've satisfied all the criteria at WP:NSONGS, one of which is charting on a national chart (there's a bout a 1% chance that this will be overlooked), as the community if it is notable or not. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Fbn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fbn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Original Research
Thanks for your reply. I had no idea that Wikipedia didn't allow this. I suppose this policy would create all kinds of controversy, regarding submission of info.
AWDRacer (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Do It Like A Dude Alternate Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Do It Like A Dude Alternate Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your comment on AfD
Your recent comment on the Articles for Deletion board was made under the wrong entry. Could you please delete it and place it under the entry you were trying to comment on? Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi -- please re-read what you wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwardian_print_culture -- it doesn't make sense because what you wrote was obviously meant for an article about a school. Please fix! Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Nobody's Perfect
Allow me to perfectly explain my edits because you still seem to be oblivious.
- Earlier I provided you with a reliable sources search engine here... you ignored that.
- Per WP:USERGENERATED – ANY SELF PUBLISHED blog is not an acceptable source hence this was removed.
- The sources provided do not support the claim that "Casualty of Love" was intended to be a single... it was released to iTunes as a promo single hence this is WP:SYNTHESIS
- A CD single release is not confirmed hence it was removed from the infobox.
- YouTube views cannot be sourced from YouTube because they are constantly changing, but can be sourced from a stable reliable news source.
- What makes stereoboard.com reliable?
- What makes hitfix.com reliable?
- Equally, why is aaamusic.com (a self-published blog on wordpress) reliable?
- This is an old discussion, but I'm re-expanding Nobody's Perfect and I took these as argument to use them as source as per TimidGuy. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- AAA Music appears to have an editorial team.[1] Stereoboard seems to be selective regarding who they hire to write reviews, which is a good sign.[2] The Music Fix has a content editor.[3]. It's not self-evident that these sites are unreliable. [4]
- The problem is I, or you or anyone else could apply to join those sites as an editor. wheras sources like Digital Spy and Popjustice have editors who are experienced and trusted industry critics... not any old or young randomer sat behind a computer screen. Editors need to have some form of credibility. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The case is most of these sites rely on press release info, they even mention it, and how to get in touch with them. There are no ubiquitous proves that those sites in fact are unreliable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- For example, most of them had images of behind the scenes of the video, because they were probably contacted by Cornish's producing staff, some of those images were published for the first time ever. AAAmusic was the first site on the internet to post about her UK Tour. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The case is most of these sites rely on press release info, they even mention it, and how to get in touch with them. There are no ubiquitous proves that those sites in fact are unreliable. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is I, or you or anyone else could apply to join those sites as an editor. wheras sources like Digital Spy and Popjustice have editors who are experienced and trusted industry critics... not any old or young randomer sat behind a computer screen. Editors need to have some form of credibility. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- AAA Music appears to have an editorial team.[1] Stereoboard seems to be selective regarding who they hire to write reviews, which is a good sign.[2] The Music Fix has a content editor.[3]. It's not self-evident that these sites are unreliable. [4]
I can understand your frustration as it must seem as if I'm just removing information you add... but there is no WP:BIAS at all. Rather the contrary, I have written 9 GA articles so I can be trusted. Equally I have over 2 years experience... I'm not saying I know everything but I do know a fair bit about reliable sources. The distinguishing factor between reliable and non-reliable online sources is that online reliable sources need to have a board of editors and established record of having got facts established. Also per WP:WAX arguing that the sources appear in other articles is not a suitable argument for inclusion. I will investigate your claims and if they are true the sources will be removed from the articles you named. Now if you could calm down a little and speak rationally without putting massive quotations on my page it would be appreciated. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know what physical release means? And why did you remove Rap-Up? There are more than 9 GA articles using the sources I used, and if you wanna come here and rub them and the 2 years of experience I'd like to rub SEVERAL FEATURED articles and over 5 years experience... I'm even pondering on submitting you to RfC, but in this case discussing your behavior. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I know what phsyical release is but it was not sourced from a WP:RS. I removed the Rap-Up reference because it was irrelavnt. You were using a source about the release of "Casualty of Love" to claim that it was intended to be released as the album's next single and that somehow due to "Nobody's Perfect" being more popular it replaced "Casualty of Love" as a single. This we cannot say for certain hence its WP:SYNTHESIS. All Jessie revealed was that "Nobody's Perfect" would be her next single not that it replaced "Casualty of Love." Additioanlly the string of comemnts about blogs on my talkpage is not in the spirit or context of WP:USERGENERATED... which clearly speaks of blogs etc. where someone can simply register a domain and begin writing information as unreliable sources of information. All the sources you used were inappropriate. I don't know why you are being so abrasive. I even went out of my way to help you, by providing a google search with reliable sources (which you completely ignored and failed to use ANY of them in the article) and I even spent 20 minutes earlier today adding info from reliable sources to show you what can be done if you stop and take your time to consider the reliability of sources. To ask for comments on my behaviour is highly uncalled for as all I've done is try to HELP you improve your editing style by SHOWING you the relevant applicable polcies, EVEN editing some of the page for you and providing you with a LIST of reliable sources.
- I've done nothing but be supportive. At no point have I shown bad faith towards you nor have I name-called or belittled you. Seriously dude your blowing things out of proportion. The whole point about blogs hosted on wordpress is that if i wanted to, I could make a blog tomorrow and post anything which someone could try and use as a source on wikipedia. Equally, any random website from google is not a reliable source... however that doesn't mean I'm saying "Nobody's Perfect" is not reliable, rather I'm saying the sources presently used are not reliable ones that's all. The only sources that are blacklisted on wikipedia are ones which are EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE, DEFAMATORY or MASS ABUSED. Millions of websites are created every week its impossible for wikipedia to black list them all. A website written or published by any random person is not reliable. This is nothing new, this is the standard convention on wikipedia and has always been the case. Notice how other users also reverted you when you kept trying to remake the article... this is not a solo crusade by me at all. It is the community applying the current rules we have which work well. I really do wish you'd take a step back and actually think about what you asked me on my talk page... you essentially asked why a blog (which anyone can make for free), which anyone can write anything about is not a reliable source? Logic itself, tells you the answer... its not. You assumption that you need a reliable source to provide correct information before removing info that is unreliable is not correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia thus content must be verifiable. Thus information should only be added if it is reliable, not information can exist until its proven unreliable. Let me ask you a final question... are you a student? Are you in education? If you turned up to class tomorrow with an essay tomorrow sourced from blogs like aaamusic.com and theprophetblog.net what do you think your lecturer or teacher would say? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is the cover sourced from? I cannot find it a reliable source for it anywhere other than BBC radio 1's playlist which consistantly uses fan-made covers from Coverlandia (blog). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've found it on Universal Music site, using link manipulation it is available on its promo pack, however I didn't keep track of the link, I didn't know that we need to source covers, I'll find it once again. regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then I'm afraid it cannot be used as a cover particular since the release is six weeks away so there's no way of verifying the cover. Its highly unlikely that it is the version of the final cover that will be used. For the time being I will remove it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like your description of the video but some of it is too sythesised. See Commander (song), Forever and a Day or Coming Home#Synopsis for examples of how you can describe things without making assumptions. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything else about the description is fine but the bit about black and white dualism is open to interpretation so unless its covered by a reliable source it can't be added. I don't really have an issue with the rest of it though. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- If its that obvious it doesn't need mentioning. :D — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything else about the description is fine but the bit about black and white dualism is open to interpretation so unless its covered by a reliable source it can't be added. I don't really have an issue with the rest of it though. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like your description of the video but some of it is too sythesised. See Commander (song), Forever and a Day or Coming Home#Synopsis for examples of how you can describe things without making assumptions. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then I'm afraid it cannot be used as a cover particular since the release is six weeks away so there's no way of verifying the cover. Its highly unlikely that it is the version of the final cover that will be used. For the time being I will remove it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I share the same concerns raised in User talk:Eduemoni#2005 U.S. Open – Men's Qualifying Singles. If you try to nominate an article for speedy deletion, please check the page history. As you tried to nominate Aryan Cargo Express for speedy deletion, you clearly did not check the page's history to see that it has been declined for speedy deletion already. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to nominate a blank page for speedy deletion I suggest you check first to see if substantial content has recently been removed. Hut 8.5 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've checked the history, and the article does not provide enough context, it is incomplete, the first and second match of every tier is empty. If it does not get the attention needed I'm going to AfD it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be surprised if it gets deleted. Being incomplete doesn't warrant deletion and doesn't mean the article doesn't provide context. Hut 8.5 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article has many problems, it does not cite references, it lacks some information, it is a content fork, it is not written with encyclopedic content, it is not fully maintained by its own project and rated as low importance, it lacks any in-depth background info, it is replicated info (thus going against mirroring policy), it is a , if you want to access it, just go to [5]. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- We don't delete articles because they are unreferenced, incomplete, rated as low importance or consist mostly of sports results. Deletion is appropriate only for articles where the article cannot be improved to acceptable standards. The only possible valid grounds for deletion in your list are "not written with encyclopedic content" (I doubt that will work at AfD, articles containing results of stages in major tennis tournaments are common) and "it is a content fork" (why, exactly?) I can see that there have been a lot of problems with your recent speedy deletion taggings and I suggest you try to work to improve the quality of your tags. Hut 8.5 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I only cited arguments that are actually cited in delete discussion. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I left you a response at the AfD but I thought I'd leave you a response here. The article was blanked by a bot because it happened to be created by a certain user. It had been discovered that this user had created a large number of copyright infringements (about 10% of the articles he created) so all the pages he ever created were blanked while editors checked they weren't copyright infringements. This article was checked and found not to be a copyright infringement, which isn't surprising because if you want to claim copyright protection in the United States you have to show a certain level of originality in the work, and phone books (for instance) aren't subject to copyright protection. This means that even if the user concerned had lifted every single one of those tennis results word-for-word from an external source it still isn't a copyright infringement. The fact that the article had been previously blanked as part of this case and then cleared is absolutely not a reason to tag it as a suspected copyright infringement unless you have new evidence (and clearly you don't).
- At this point I get the impression that you're trying to destroy this article by any means necessary in order to justify your speedy deletion tag. If this is the case I advise you to stop. Hut 8.5 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you are thinking this way, you are wrong, I'm just concerned about its encyclopedic contribution to WP which is none, this is why I'm AfD it, and I have this right, if this fails I won't go any further. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I only cited arguments that are actually cited in delete discussion. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- We don't delete articles because they are unreferenced, incomplete, rated as low importance or consist mostly of sports results. Deletion is appropriate only for articles where the article cannot be improved to acceptable standards. The only possible valid grounds for deletion in your list are "not written with encyclopedic content" (I doubt that will work at AfD, articles containing results of stages in major tennis tournaments are common) and "it is a content fork" (why, exactly?) I can see that there have been a lot of problems with your recent speedy deletion taggings and I suggest you try to work to improve the quality of your tags. Hut 8.5 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article has many problems, it does not cite references, it lacks some information, it is a content fork, it is not written with encyclopedic content, it is not fully maintained by its own project and rated as low importance, it lacks any in-depth background info, it is replicated info (thus going against mirroring policy), it is a , if you want to access it, just go to [5]. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be surprised if it gets deleted. Being incomplete doesn't warrant deletion and doesn't mean the article doesn't provide context. Hut 8.5 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Standupforlove.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Standupforlove.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you please add the relevant chart info? Thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dethklok
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dethklok. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
File:BEYONCÉ Certifications by RIAA.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BEYONCÉ Certifications by RIAA.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Stephanie Adams
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephanie Adams. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion tagging
I suggest that you review the criteria for speedy deletion and make sure that you understand them before tagging an more articles. Quite a few of them have been declined recently. Also, if an administrator declined one of your speedy deletion requests, it is not appropriate to tag them again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was coming here to request this as well. Several articles you have tagged as A1 and A3 clearly do not meet this criteria; if context is clear and there is legitimate content other than an external link, speedy deletion under those criteria is not appropriate. Also, please make sure that an article does not have a pre-vandalism history before tagging it for CSD (for example, John Gamble (baseball)). --Kinu t/c 19:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Warning
This is a level one warning about your behaviour in nominations of articles for deletion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Convention Centre. Please take a look at WP:BEFORE and do more checking so that you are not degrading the encyclopedia and wasting people's time with your nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- When I nominated the article, it was not emptied as you can see in the revision history. I'll ignore your warning because it is very impolite and rude towards me. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Graeme, how long have you been an admin for? That's a shockingly impolite way to warn a fellow editor. Nightw 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also to follow-up on your re-adding the stub templates to this article. If you checked the revision history, you will notice I removed them yesterday and re-assessed the article as start class. I have followed the 12 sentences or more and it isn't a stub rule for a long time. The article also has an infobox, multiple photos and plenty of citations. All of this means it doesn't qualify as a stub anymore. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such a rule that if it has more than 12 sentences it is not a stub anymore, the general consensus about stubs is that it's an article that is too short and it is not yet split into sections and subsections (with either lead section too short or lead too big), having or not a infobox does not qualify it or not into a stub, for example Soulful_(Dionne_Warwick_album) is a stub, but this Anastacia_(album) is a start article, I'm well aware and familiarized with assessment, because as you can see I used to be WP:R&B front man for a while, but right now I'm away with it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also to follow-up on your re-adding the stub templates to this article. If you checked the revision history, you will notice I removed them yesterday and re-assessed the article as start class. I have followed the 12 sentences or more and it isn't a stub rule for a long time. The article also has an infobox, multiple photos and plenty of citations. All of this means it doesn't qualify as a stub anymore. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Graeme, how long have you been an admin for? That's a shockingly impolite way to warn a fellow editor. Nightw 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Vanessa Williams The Comfort Zone
Is there a reason why when you created this article that you gave a single recording period of April 1991? It is obviously wrong and you likely did not care to research it, leaving many of Vanessa Williams' fans and listeners under false impressions of her album material being solely from April 1991. Many songs such "Just For Tonight" and the hit "Save The Best For Last" were recorded in 1990, not April 1991. Please refrain from making such an unfactual addition in the midst of creating an article.Carmaker1 (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Such a rude approach, sorry for this huge mistake, but I created this article based solely on information provided by Amazon and Grammy quotes. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)