User talk:Hollow Wilerding/Archive 1

Archive 1: November 5, 2005–December 31, 2005

Cool (song)

Thanks for catching the one I missed. Jkelly 03:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning comments made by User:Mel Etitis

Taken from User:Extraordinary Machine's talk page:

I may be wrong, but judging by the inability to write without violent language (as with the last part of this) and edit summaries like this, Hollow Wilerding seems to me to be Winnermario (who, though claiming to be a University-age female was clearly an adolescent male; he explained his e-mail address by saying that he shared it with a younger cousin...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip is not appreciated. For one, you accusing me of being User:Winnermario with two individual edits that don't live up to the standards of Mariah are vile — she did tell me to avoid you, and that I've been attempting to accomplish. And two, your comment about Mariah pretending to be in University is interestingly amusing. Do you honestly believe that she's an adolescent male because she happens to share her PC with her younger cousin? It's preposterous. And those edits are not violent; they are merely my questioning evolving into minor fury. --Hollow Wilerding 02:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove your maturity by not reformatting the charts until a consensus has actually been met with at the WikiMusic Discussion. The fact that you do makes you look desperate and demanding. --Hollow Wilerding 02:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to make a personal comment: the fact that you believe me to be an adolescent male (oh dear) veers me to believe whether you are really an Oxford professor. I was wondering if that's your tactic to receiving honourship and praise here on Wikipedia. But that's fine with me, one way or another. You don't believe me to be a University-student—although I am not Mariah, but a woman named Courtni teaching high school science and English—so I fail to believe that you are an Oxford professor. Besides, what would a busy professor with so much time on his hands be doing on an internet encyclopedia? It boggles me. --Hollow Wilerding 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean " busy professor with little time on his hands", right? --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not. --Hollow Wilerding 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Winnernario is supposed to be a University student studying English who thinks that "numberous" is a word, whose English is often so grammatically peculiar as to be genuinely obscure, whose first name just happens to be that of one of the main pop stars whose articles he edits, and who acts and writes like an adolescent boy. You're supposed to be an English teacher who uses words like "honourship", whose English is grammatically peculiar ("veers me to believe", "if that's your tactic to receiving...", etc.), and whose behaviour involves the aggression and petulance of an adolescent boy. No, obviously not the same people, obviously two mature women after all... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My grammar is only incorrect when I am typing, let me make that clear now — this is because I always assume I will get my point across in an easier fashion, but this has always failed me. Verbally, I am much better.

Anyway, "...and whose behaviour involves the aggression and petulance of an adolescent boy". You are in no position to assume this because you cannot prove it. But I would like to know why you do assume that I am Mariah, who you assume to be an adolescent boy. I will also express something Mariah said somewhere on a talk page on Wikipedia (although I cannot remember where it is posted): "No one has perfect English". This includes you, Mel Etitis. I will never have perfect English, and you will never have perfect English. Another point I would like to bring up is Mariah's name: ...So what? She having the same name as Mariah Carey is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Hollow Wilerding 21:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems as though you did not reply to my above message for obvious reasons. I am not surprsied. Also, Mariah thought "numberous" was a word? I will give you that one, because you're right, it's not. But anyway, once you find evidence for your comments, that's when I will take them seriously. --Hollow Wilerding 21:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

I have nothing against Kylie, but if you think she is European I assume you also think that Madonna is British? --SMeeds 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment was not clear. As you now understand, I meant that she could not be described as a "European female solo artist", being Australian, but I assumed it to be an inadvertant error and therefore preferred alluding to it rather than stating the obvious so as not to risk offending you. --SMeeds 09:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Crazy in Love

I'm confused. I reverted back to your own edits last night after an anonymous user separated the tables, and now that same anon has changed them back. --keepsleeping say what 02:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now: you saw the edits the anon made and thought they were mine. I've just reverted the article again to the new chart format. --keepsleeping say what 02:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Not to be pushy

Sorry for not doing it earlier, I'll get right on it now. And I don't think you were being pushy at all, just less absent-minded than me :). Extraordinary Machine 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hollaback Girl.

I haven't had the opportunity to be properly acquianted with you yet. My name is Courtni, aka Hollow Wilerding. I've been meaning to ask you a question regarding Hollaback Girl, but my mind was apparently elsewhere at the times. Do you know how to retrieve a sample of the song? Unfortunately my knowledge has not been enhanced to the point where I could go ahead and place the recording in the article myself. --Hollow Wilerding 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can make you a sample of "Hollaback Girl". It will be 30 seconds long and in .OGG format, to conform with Wikipedia standards. Just let me know what general 30 seconds you want (the intro and hook, a verse, or the "this shit is bananas...b-a-n-a-n-a-s" part). If you'd rather do it yourself, you'll need a good copy of the song and the Audacity sound editing program. Peace. --FuriousFreddy 23:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly. Well I was previously test-running the track itself (my husband can't stand it; watch me suffer), and I came to a conclusion that from 2 min, 32 sec. to 3 min, 02 sec. would be best, as the time limit contains the "Shit is bananas" bridge twice, the chorus, and one line from the "Oooh, this my shit" hook. Is it within your reach to accomplish the above? --Hollow Wilerding 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put the sample into the article. Tell me what you think. --FuriousFreddy 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and I thank you. However, I have one more request. Would it be possible for you to label it the way it is in Cool (song)? I.E. "Thirty second sample of 'Cool'" over "Hollaback Girl", and removing the "description"? Then I think this article is complete! :D Much appreciated! --Hollow Wilerding 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the decription. --FuriousFreddy 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your help! I was just curious to know, do you think this article has what it takes to become featured without any other edits? --Hollow Wilerding 02:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions:

Copyedit the entire article, checking for grammar, repetitions, and excess information. For example, the article currently states that Stefani says the word "shit" in the song three times. There are similar akwardly worded paragraphs, particularly the first paragraph uder "Composition and meanings".

Revise the "chart performance" section song. As it currently stands, there is a lot of dead weight present there, such as:

On the opposite spectrum, even though the song has hip hop influences, it was able to crossover and chart on the Hot A/C chart of the Adult Top 40 at number eighteen. This position is notable as the Hot A/C is usually a relatively conservative chart, and it usually will not play urban music or any music influenced by hip hop. Because of these positions, "Hollaback Girl" has become one of the most successful crossover hits of all time, as it was able to chart on both ends of the chart spectrum. These actions led to Stefani being labelled as an urban artist for a short period of time.

This paragraph is somewhat awkward, and could easily become a sentence long:Even though the song has hip hop influences, it was able to crossover and chart on the usually conservative Adult Top 40 chart at number eighteen.

Both of these positions were the highest that a non-African-American/Urban Latino solo artist had attained on those two charts in the 2000s - Ugh. Not well-worded. "Non hip-hop/R&B artist" reads much better, and is race-neutral (what is an "Urban Latino"? OmegaWikipedia tried to squeeze that made-up term into the R&B article).

The music video should be mentioned before the chart performance.

Might want to name the other Neptune (Chad Hugo) somewhere in the article as the song's other producer besides Pharrell. --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits (with the exception of the music video suggestion) have been made. Thanks so much. --Hollow Wilerding 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it takes to go solo to make a featured article (see Caulfield Grammar School), and will have a look over Cool to help, but please do not attack or in any way send negative messages to those who oppose the FA. There are legitimate objections to this article, and so you should probably realise thi FA will not succeed now, and work towards preparing for a second dig. Good faith can't just be tagged on the end of comments to smooth everything over. Harro5 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my edit at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl

In response to this edit of yours, I explained to you here why that is a useful thing to do. In this case, it is probably unnecessary, as User:Raul654 is very savvy and would be unlikely to count those votes in the first place. Jkelly 01:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: sample.

It's actually 29.8 seconds. --FuriousFreddy 17:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

My advice is to keep working on it, and address as many of the objections as you can. And be as friendly as you can manage about it, because attitude counts; people will be much more strict about their standards if they get a bad feeling about you as the nominator. It looks daunting now, I admit, but even if you can't get it featured this time, if you work hard at it your odds of succeeding in a future second nom are improved. Everyking 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've run into the anti-pop culture bias on Wikipedia. I've battled against it before, too. Some people don't believe that fame (or even massive, global fame) is sufficient for genuine notability; they want a song to "stand the test of time" and have lasting influence. Which I think is completely preposterous, but you just have to try to work around that bias. Everyking 01:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hollaback Girl

Don't give up; you can't make a nomination end prematurely (at least I don't think so), so it's going to sit there for at least a few more days. One big thing people are looking for is more information on how the song was made ,and its importance in pop culture outside of its sales statistics and music video, which are ususally small elements of a popular song's legacy (the exceptions are videos by people like Michael Jackson). Being a number-one song, I'm sure places like MTV.com and VH1.com have articles about Stefani and the song, and she has to have done some magazine interviews (Rolling Stone, Spin, Blender, etc.) on the song and/or her album. Basically, information on why the song is important outside of its success. You should especially see if you can find some user reviews online of the song, to give an indication of its significant popularity in dance clubs (I've seen people lose their minds when "Hollaback Girl" comes on in a club). Also, since the Neptunes' stamp is so firmly imprinted into the song, a comparison (or at least a mention) of similar-sounding records the Neptunes have produced (several Kelis songs, "Shake Ya Ass" by Mystikal, and, for the minimalist effect, "Grindin'" by the Clipse come to mind, but there are probably more and better examples).

The other big thing is that it needs a rewrite. Most of the article reads typical of the work of another Wikipedia user, who was known for writing long articles on pop songs that always needed prose cleanup (and he would often scream bloody murder whenever anyone would try). The big difference between the articles for "Hollaback Girl" and "Cool" are that Cool (song) goes into detail about why the song is important (it's about Stefani's personal life, and it explains how and why). "Hollaback Girl" isn't as personal or deep, true, but it's not a meaningless song at all.

Just don't give up so early. --FuriousFreddy 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as right right now, I'm trying to tie up tonight's editing (I have two deadlines looming over my head; I shouldn't even be here). If you aren't take care of it before the nomination period is over, give me a few weeks to get more free time in my schedule back, and we'll see what we can do about revising the article (because that revision -- I've done similar ones before -- is going to take me several hours) and finding more information. --FuriousFreddy 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's nice of you to take on your friend's editing tasks. I'm not at all the world's most knowledgable source on R&B music, but it's such a gaping hole in the Wikipedia that I dedicated myself to working on it (although I listened to a lot of the newer stuff, I'd only heard about 5 or 6 Temptations songs before I came here, if you can believe that). I know lots of people whose knowledge of R&B makes me look like an embarrasment, but I can't see m to get them to sign up here. --FuriousFreddy 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding? Wha?

Are you serious? Andrevan 02:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing but respect for Silence. He's a great man and a credit to Wikipedia. What could you possibly have against him, and why would you suggest that I dislike him? Andre (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hollaback Girl research

Here are a couple of things I found at MTV.com: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1497721/20050303/story.jhtml

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507837/20050818/story.jhtml

These should be good for background information expansion. --FuriousFreddy 03:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Thanks for your concern. Can you exaplin what you mean by It isn't very polite and puts-down a fellow Wikipedian. I really don't understand what the problem is. Guettarda 04:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless I am terribly mistaken—in which I offer you an utter-most apology—are you not referring to another individual on Wikipedia? That is I believe the front of your userpage suggests: I have been "attacked" as Guettarda - Liberal Admin, and criticised for editing topics I know about. I don't think there is any better compliment here in Wikipedia. Maybe I'll add that to my sig. I am truly sorry if what I read was miscommunicated to me. --Hollow Wilerding 13:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it would amount to a put-down. It's like the note at the bottom of the page saying "This page has been vandalised six times" is a put-down, or like people listing the names they have been called. I find the idea of being called a liberal as an insult and being "attacked" for editing in the area in which I have my PhD terribly amusing. I don't really think the moniker "liberal" fits me all that well, but if people consider me a "Liberal Admin" I might as well list it at the top of my user page. It's much better than having someone say that I kept my views hidden, or I hid the fact that I was an admin.

In addition, I don't see how reporting a factual quote, and including a diff, is a put-down. It's simply reporting. Guettarda 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am generously sorry for misunderstanding. --Hollow Wilerding 16:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it down the page. Is this less likely to be misinterpreted? Guettarda 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's preferrable. Thanks muchly. --Hollow Wilerding 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I would like to point out as per this edit that removing capital letters from bracket-song titles is incorrect due to songwriting limits. Please refer to Billboard.com or another source for accurate writing. (I suppose this applies to Wikipedian users more so, this being an encyclopedia and all that jazz.) Thanks for understanding. --Hollow Wilerding 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by "songwriting limits", nor why you think that they override normal English conventions and the logic of the case.
I don't take my understanding of correct writing from music journalists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you, as this—"Hollow Wilerding (Mel Etitis Remix)"—is the standard form of CD single labelling for song titles in non-studio recording, they will be displayed around Wikipedia with their accompanying track listings and formats. --Hollow Wilerding 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the song title is "Hollow Wilerding", and Mel Etitis does a remix of it, then it's "Hollow Wilerding" remixed by Mel Etitis — or "Hollow Wilerding" (Mel Etitis remix). What the people who print CD labels call it, I'm not interested (though I should add that I have a number of CDs including remixes in which the booklets, inserts, and labels all give the correct versions, as explained above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mel Etitis on this one. The capitalisation of words such as "Remix" and "Album Version" looks very odd to me. I hold Mel in high regard as an editor, and his edits seem to be useful and made in good faith, as far as I can see (this is why I refrained from being shoehorned into your disagreement with him about the sections on Rich Girl), so please don't leave comments on my talk page like "I am beginning to wonder if he is here only to hassle its users" and "His behaviour is not one to clash with, and unfortunately, I've met with this fate". Thanks Extraordinary Machine 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Hollaback Girl

Please try and be less defensive - I know some people are unjustifiedly stating opinions about the quality of the subject matter, but don't assume everyone's objections are rooted in prejudice. User:Carnildo, for example, is equally a stickler about fair use images in every candidate article. Wikipedia's standards for featured articles go up over time, and this is one way that they have. After all, being sued over pictures would be even worse!

I personally think Wikipedia's breadth is a strength, not a weakness, and that every subject is unimportant to someone. I got Canon T90 featured, which is pretty much a camera-fan's article, and in my opinion just as unimportant a subject. If we can write a quality article about something, it should be able to get featured. Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development

I've attempted to fix all your objections. Let me know if you have any more, or please update your vote. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 22:05

I don't understand where this end spoiler tag is supposed to be placed? There are spoilers throughout the article, not just in the plot section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 00:19
- That's fine. Done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 00:25
- I've properly formatted the references and placed direct citation links where possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 01:18

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl

FYI, I've taken the unusual step of starting the nomination over, for reasons I have made clear on that page. Raul654 09:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single cover images on Cool (song)

Per Wikipedia:Fair use, copyrighted images shouldn't be used on articles for decoration, nor should they be used if they have little relation to the articles in which they are being used in. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Extraordinary Machine 21:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination process

I was wondering if you could end the Hollaback Girl nomination process? Being the only user working on the article, I would find it acceptable to take a break from all the fuss that has been created at the FAC page. It would be much appreciated, whether the result is featured or contested. If it is perhaps the latter, I will give it another attempt next month. Thank you. –Hollow Wilerding 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved substantially, but I still don't think there's consensus. I agree that another nomination later would probably be the best idea. Raul654 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. –Hollow Wilerding 00:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question

Due to the most uttering-awesome work that you've exemplified on Black pepper—which will be the featured article on the main page this coming weekend—I was just curious to know if you wanted to work on an article together sometime. You know, anything, as I really require a break from all of the hustle and bustle that has become Hollaback Girl. Whatever your reply, I am content. –Hollow Wilerding 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just... super flattering. :-) I'm working on Butter right now, and it's pretty far along, so I don't think it would be much fun at this point. But trying out some collaborative editing sounds like it might be fun. I haven't picked out anything to work on after Butter; got any ideas? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular, but I have been leaning toward something categorized in the fruit/vegetable section. –Hollow Wilerding 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani quote on Cool (song)

Actually, the quote does have a source. It was one of the two references I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cool_%28song%29&diff=29519988&oldid=29519438 added] recently. Sorry for the misunderstanding...I thought I had responded to you about this issue here, but I guess I forgot to click "Save page". Sorry! Extraordinary Machine 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, we all make silly errors; could you add the source since you were the one who discovered it? Much appreciated, as always. –Hollow Wilerding 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the first of the two references, the "Gwen Stefani's Song About Tony Kanal To Be Her Next Single" article from MTV.com. Extraordinary Machine 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hollaback Article

Hey! Sure I would love to help out. Just let me know if you need anything, I seem to do well finding information on release formats, charts and certifications. Underneath-it-All 05:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, it's a good read, though it does read a little slow in places (the "Chart performance" section, for example), and I agree with the commentators at FAC that the image from the music video of Stefani taking the photograph seems to be used for decorative purposes (you could easily argue fair use on the other screenshot, though, as it may be important to note that the Harajuku Girls are a recurring theme of the promotion for L.A.M.B.). I can't see any huge problems with it. I suggest that you file a new request at Wikipedia:Peer review for the article, and mention that it is a failed FAC, as it may get more comments that way. Also, if you want more reviews from print publications rather than just online, then you could visit this link (don't know what I was doing on a Gwen Stefani fansite at the time). Oh, and thanks for the compliment, but I am a teenager. Honest. :) Extraordinary Machine 13:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on blueberry

I see that you've contacted User:Bunchofgrapes to collaborate on blueberry, however it does not appear as though you've received a response from him/her. Is there a specific date you want to begin the collaboration on? --DrippingInk 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You see DrippingInk, I'm currently attempting to elevate The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to featured article, but I'm partly hesitant on submitting it to the nomination process; have you seen Hollaback Girl? Some of the objections greatly irritated me. So now I'm unconfident about Majora Mask's future. Since I've been desperately attempting to transform these two articles into featured articles, I'm not quite sure when the blueberry collaboration can bring. Also, I have a very busy December ahead of me. It's only my first year teaching as a science and English teacher, and I require some time for grading and what-not. We can begin soon though, I promise. —Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Majora's Mask has improved considerably since you started editing it; I admire your... admiration towards the article. Anyway, don't worry, I'm going to be having a busy Christmastime too, since my contract with the gallery has finally expired. Of course, no industry expert has yet to categorize my art as "high profile".

Anyway, taking a look at blueberry, I think we should document its trade in the past millennium, and perhaps include its most well-known recipes. What about you?

Oh, and I'll vote for Hollaback Girl again. It has already met featured article status, believe me. The users who are objecting are just complaining, except for that one named Tsavage. He appears to know what he is talking about. --DrippingInk 01:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and cleaned the page at talk:blueberry to pave a path for the upcoming collaboartion. -DrippingInk 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberry collaboration

I would just like to inform you that there will be a collaboration on blueberry beginning by Christmastime. I was curious to know if you'd like to participate, considering you've elevated several food articles to featured status. —Hollow Wilerding 02:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Count me in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your support is greatly appreciated! Of course you can begin to edit the article as of present if you feel like it, although the actual collaboration will not begin until Christmas, as myself and User:DrippingInk will be busy until the holidays. Nonetheless, thanks for your valued support! —Hollow Wilerding 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Peer review

Originally posted on my talk page:

This edit indicates that you reverted the peer review that I closed due to the large amounts of useful comments on elevating Majora's Mask. Is there a rule that states I have to wait for the peer review to be closed before switching the tag? If so, I did not know this, and therefore apologize for causing any ineffeciencies. —Hollow Wilerding 22:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that I am aware of, I merely thought it odd to list it as archived when the discussion was still open and available on Peer review. If you particularly want it to change it back feel free, though it might also be a good idea to remove it from the Peer review page. Also, while I'm here I'd like to congratulate you on the work you've done so far to the article. Comparing the mid-November version with the current incarnation it is miles better. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 23:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article-elevation compliment, and I will leave the peer review listed at Wikipedia:Peer review until its session is complete. —Hollow Wilerding 23:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination process

Just wanted to say I hope they let you try to get Hollaback Girl featured again sometime soon. Can you sum up the remaining objections? Maybe I can help with something. Everyking 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, I am fed up with attempting to upgrade the Hollaback Girl article and will be taking a break from its improval. You can most certainly contribute to the article and edit it as you wish, of course (since that is what Wikipedia is here for), however I'm going to be invading other articles for now. Just wanted you to know. —Hollow Wilerding 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't get too discouraged. A year ago I nominated Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) for FA and the nom was shot down on the grounds that the article was too detailed and thorough. I mean, no criticism is more frustrating than that, when you're being asked to remove tons of detail that you believe is important. Two noms since then and it still isn't featured. So I think as long as the objections are asking you to add something, or rework something, you can look at that as an opportunity to make the article better. Even if they're being perfectionist, that's better than being asked to make destructive edits to the article. Also, you've got to remember the anti-pop culture bias. I think a lot of people got pissed when they saw Cool on the main page—they were horrified that such a "trivial" topic would get such prominence. So they were determined to make sure it was tougher the second time around. But with time, as we've gotten more contributors on pop music, the bias has gotten less powerful. A year ago, I was fighting a hellish battle just to make sure Ashlee single articles were allowed to exist, and then once I won that battle I had to fight even harder battles to keep the content from being reduced to stub length. Now people are a lot more moderate and reasonable about that. So I think in another year it will be better still. Well, anyway, best wishes on whatever articles you're concentrating on now. Everyking 04:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar/medal, and for your input in the Cheese FAC. I hope you do get Hollaback Girl to FAC sometime soon, but the campaign you are on at the moment seems to be an attempt to gather as much ill-will for it and you as you can, so I'm sorry to say it looks unlikely. :-( Play nice! It will pay off in the long run. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite

Thanks for your changes to Shakira. However, you did not cite your figures and so, as noted on the page, we had to revert your changes. Sorry. --Yamla 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that the U.S. position was not cited. So just for the record, I will be removing its postion, and including the Canadian position. —Hollow Wilerding 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What You Waiting For?

Since What You Waiting For? is one of your favourite Gwen Stefani songs, why don't you edit it for featured article status next? I know that Hollaback Girl has caused you to attain a pain in the rear end, but since WYWF is the other favourite song of yours, you should begin to elevate it. Rich Girl should follow this. --DrippingInk 21:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well suggested idea. Perhaps I will, considering Rich Girl doesn't happen to be one of my favourite Stefani singles. Also, remember our collaboration on blueberry. —Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I won't. --DrippingInk 22:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Took you long enough to reply. :P —Hollow Wilerding 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas busy with the gallery. As a matter of fact, I'm going to be leaving again now. You see, some executives are coming around and want to have a second tour of my show. Pesky waste of time I say; if one doesn't like it the first time, don't return! Of course I complied, though. --DrippingInk 22:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you have fun! —Hollow Wilerding 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am intentionally spending less time on Wikipedia, I'm afraid that I have to refrain from participating in this collaboration, as I would like to focus on other projects. Don't take any of this personally, it's just that I'd rather write about a subject I feel quite strongly about with the time that I do spend here. Extraordinary Machine 15:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do not take this personally. Your contributions on Wikipedia are excellent, regardless of the article you edit, so thank you nonetheless. Perhaps we could collaborate some other time. —Hollow Wilerding 16:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOOOOOO!

AWESOME JOB ON MAJORA'S MASK AND HOLLABACK HOLLOW! KICK THOSE PEOPLE WHERE IT HURTS! --Winnermario 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please attempt a civilized attitude, Winnermario. I understand that you are irritated with many of the users on Wikipedia, but please don't over-exercise your fury. Thanks. —Hollow Wilerding 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Winnermario

WTF are you talking about, Hollow? --Anittas 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winnermario is evidently upset with certain Wikipedians for the actions they have inflicted upon her throughout her presence on this website. The message that she left me was perplexing, however I knew she was releasing her fury in a down-to-earth method due to her complimenting me on eleveating articles Hollaback Girl and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to substantial quality. By the way, would you like to readd me to your MSN list? I don't quite understand why you originally removed me. Did it have something to do with me becoming Winnermario's successor? She donated her account to me, I know it sounds unusual. —Hollow Wilerding 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's you. I removed you because I don't think that Mario did right when giving you her account; mainly because it gives away her contact list. I'm not upset that she gave away my addy to someone else, but it was weird. You, also, acted a bit weird. Mario is back now, so you could give her back the account. If you need me, you can add me on your own account. --Anittas 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you view Mariah's profile page, you will understand that she will seldom log on to Wikipedia. Due to this matter, she has entrusted me with her MSN account — permanently. Should she subsequently return to internet socializing, she will register her name under a new account. I quote Mariah: "Times have been difficult since I began blogging with the Wikipedians. Sometimes I found myself in danger, while other times I felt useless. It was time consuming. Now I'm only going to log on to Wikipedia occasionally. That settles the matter now. I wish [the Wikipedians] could try to see what I'm getting at [Courtni]." End quote. —Hollow Wilerding 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like these exchanges, but whatever. What was the addy? I'll re-add you. --Anittas 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it was first her cousin's, then hers, and now yours. That's quite a dynasty. --Anittas 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Blueberry

Regarding the message you left at Talk:Blueberry, if you don't suppose that the article can be upgraded to become a featured article, perhaps we could collaborate on something less... specific and something more general on a worldwide basis? What do you think? —Hollow Wilerding 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have recently noticed that garlic is a travesty of an article right now... That's pretty much one well-defined species, as far as I can tell. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of coincidental fact, I had been looking at that article earlier this evening (or morning, wherever you are located in the world). Since I do enjoy cooking with various garlics, perhaps we could collaborate on the article. Its quality is... questionable. A very broad topic shouldn't be sitting in the peanut gallery. Let us make garlic! —Hollow Wilerding 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm in Oregon, by the way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon. Very cool. Are there any specific topics you want me to research? —Hollow Wilerding 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finding reliable figures for world production and trade is usually a challenge for these food articles, so it's worth getting a head-start on that. Good sources for non-western history and use are always welcome too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought something could be done with Blueberry after all! At least it stimulated some useful improvements to the article :-) I'll take a look in on Garlic too, that shouldn't be a problem to make a good article of - MPF 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blueberry article is already a shining gem compared to where garlic is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too right! There wasn't even a basic description of what garlic looks like (there is now!) - MPF 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hollow Wilerding - thanks for the note; yes, I think there's scope for adding quite a bit there, it is still short on many aspects, like uses (both modern, and Native American traditional uses), cultural, Native American names, etc, in particular. Just noticed I'll have to take out Sparkleberry too as it isn't in sect. Cyanococcus - MPF 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Dion

This is probably a bother, but could you please take another look at the Céline Dion article. I've taken the comments at the last FA and have tried to address them: Ive found many print sources, about 4 Books, more authoritative reviews:New york Times, Billboard.com, Los Angeles Times etc. Ive addressed her music, changes in sounds/genres, motivation etc. at the end of each sub-section, and Ive also added a "Image and Celebrity status" section at the bottom. Ive sent it to peer review for two days, but no reply. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My computer is infected with viruses, so I'm unable to reply to messages or converse online (Im at the public library, but ill be leaving now.) Thanks for the kudos on the article. I'm not sure that it will be promoted; its now too controversal. However, you should know that no text was plagiarised (how could I have plagiarised, and I cited all my sources), but points were derived from these sources and rewritten (which is what referencing and sourcing info is all about. Ive replied on the FAC page). Sure, I'd be willing to work on an article, but I have no idea if I might be able to be 100% involved; school and work are getting to me, but I'll do as much as I can. Feel free to reply on my talk page. Ill reply when my cmputer is fixed (which might be a week from now) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Roman Catholic Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities I think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion. Dwain 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I choose not to vote, but I will watch the debate as it proceeds. —Hollow Wilerding 21:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

I didn't really have do much to learn those languages. My parents are Dutch, but I grew up in Geneva, where I went to an English-speaking school :) Jacoplane 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheless, excellent abilities! Keep it up! —Hollow Wilerding 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Of course, I will vote for it. I was just busy at the time I left that message. -- RattleMan 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I am currently in the process of uploading the new image. —Hollow Wilerding 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making a new section, I'll put this here; hope you'll see it. Good job on helping to get the Majora's Mask article up to Featured Article status. -- RattleMan 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Just wondering...

Hi Hollow — no reason why not, any suggestions? (note: I'm just about to go offline now so don't expect a reply till tomorrow!) - MPF 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything, really. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I'll look out some ideas in the morning - MPF 01:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right then! :) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow getting back! (been sorting various interwikis and other odds'n'ends) - having done garlic, how about Onion or Leek (vegetable)? - MPF 17:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A third party opinion

Hi, I saw you remove an image for Talk (single) per Wikipedia:Images. I was wondering if you could provide a third party opinion for Square One Shopping Centre. User:Mb1000 has been cluttering the article with 3 photos, even though its' no more than 4-500 words in length. Thanks. --Madchester 18:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. --Mb1000 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...Is there something you would like to ask me? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just joining the conversation. --Mb1000 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square One Shopping Centre

I noticed that you again removed the bottom photograph of Square One from the article; please do not continue to do so. As you may know, I was in a bit of an edit war with User:Madchester over the issue. I took it before the AFA and it was resolved. User:Gator1 from the AFA stated in his opinion that three images did not overwhelm the page. Also, I would like to point out that you did not state the removal in the edit summary. This is a bit sneeky, unless it was an accident, in which case I'm sorry :)

On a completly different note, while reading your user page I found out we have a lot in common.

I'm also:

From Toronto (living in Mississauga)

A fan of Sir Paul and Green Day.

I also have an interest in languages. I can speak fluent:

English (read, write, and speak, first language)

Spanish (read and speak, but can't write)

Arabic (can't read or write, only speak).

I can also read and understand French and Latin.

Anyways, back to original subject. Please don't revert. Thanks. --Mb1000 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the edit wars that you have been involved in. However, the fact that three images are huddled together in an article the size of Square One Shopping Centre is not particularly acceptable. I would be willing to allow three images (because it doesn't overwhelm the article, as they say) to remain in the article as long as it is expanded upon — otherwise as per Wikipedia:Images, this is a violation. I would also like to note that these images have no copyright rationale. Therefore, above any other discussion or argument you have add with other users, if the images do not attain the proper rationale within the next six days, they will be listed for deletion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article is not a violation of the images policy. User:Gator1 in his neutral third party opinion on the article talk page stated:

"I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing...

"While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye."

Also, to which photograph are you refering to regarding copyright rationale and sources? All three images on the page are properly tagged and sourced. --Mb1000 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate other users caling me intolerant. --Mb1000 21:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not persist in placing the third image in the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not persist in removing it. --Mb1000 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Luxurious" tracklistings

I think that's all the major releases of "Luxurious". I'll continue to look just in case. Underneath-it-All 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links to years in music articles

Just thought I'd inform you that per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Piped link, piped links to "years in music" articles (e.g. 1995) should be avoided. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for informing me of this, but could you please explain how you knew about my edits to the Hero (Mariah Carey song) article? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I cast my fears aside, and I know I can survive :')...and also, I had the page on my watchlist. :) Extraordinary Machine 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...If you do insist. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luxurious video

According to various fansites the video was filmed in Los Angeles. Shooting took place on October 1st and 2nd. [1] Underneath-it-All 03:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Your help is appreciated! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! Anytime! Underneath-it-All 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've located the city where the music video was filmed, could you help me retrieve two good images from the video? The images cannot have any icons on them (TRL, MuchMusic, etc.) as that is copyright infrigment. Thanks for your help again! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded one picture but I have two more for you as well. link and link If you want different one I can create more. Underneath-it-All 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Stefani and Slim Thug is excellent; I'm going to insert it into the article right now. However, the one of her applying the make-up to her face is a bit blurry. Could you perhaps find one where she is lying in the thousands of candy? I'm in your debt. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a picture of Gwen drying her nails from the video. It's of pretty good quality. I'll keep on working on the candy image, but I have yet to find one of good quality or one that doesn't have a major music station logo in the corner. link Underneath-it-All 16:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, much thanks! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any luck with finding an image with Gwen in the candy. Any images I have found have are blurry or have a music channel logo in the corner. I will look some stuff up on the composition and meaning. Underneath-it-All 03:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this about the music video which I think is valuable because it shows where Stefani got her inspiration from for its theme:

"Usually I have [a video concept] right when I write the song," she said. "I had this one vision of this girl that was from high school named Mercedes ... she's very inspiring. She's this total like chola girl, white face, and she used to sit in class and put on tons of makeup. And I used to just watch her, mesmerized. And she would just wear this dark liner and this red lipstick and she had this safety pin and she'd be picking her eyelashes apart. She hadn't taken that mascara off for months." [2]

I think the page looks great! I think it would be great to add something little on notes, majors and minors but finding that info may be hard unless someone who knows about that stuff can help out. Other than that I think the article is very informative. This is just a suggestion but maybe a section or part could be added listing the credits for the song, like the additional musicians, etc. Happy New Year! Underneath-it-All 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-verbal?

Hi! I noticed your page while looking for HasBeen's mysterious e-teamers.

Keep up the good work! It's people like you that make Wikipedia what it is.
I see you say we should consider ourselves lucky that Wikipedia is not verbal. Au contraire! It is not oral, but it is definitely verbal.

-- "Captain Nitpick" (Slashme 10:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Irish

Hey! When I was 10 I visted Ireland for a summer with my family and I guess I just fell in love with it. My first favourite band, U2, are from Ireland, I don't know what it is. I just have this strange fascination with it. Underneath-it-All 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well your interest is certainly intriguing. Fabulous committment! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira

Recently, I have noticed that someone has been removing Shakira's quotes. I believe that if they are removed, they should be placed as a different article. Meanwhile they are to remain in the main article Shakira.

How dare you warn me that I have altered someone's profile. You should be warn, not me, you ignorant person. I will continue to put the quote in the main article. I don't care how many times you remove it. I am determined to put it back. Another thing,I was never vandalizing your dull profile, shallow person.

Oh, okay then, now I get you

Hi there, please forgive me for "vandalizing" anything related to you. I was quite over-protective of what I added related to Shakira. I was stubborn, once again sorry. If I need advise, well I'll consult you. Bye.

Re: Bulbasaur FAC

I have sourced the image properly and referenced more/properly. Thanks. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani is legendary!

She will forever be the queen. I've got to go now, but I'll see you later! --DrippingInk 00:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I'll see you later, then. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Shakira

Hi smarty, the sources for information are various sources: an episode on tv "VH1 Driven: Shakira" from this year, the book "Shakira, Woman Full Of Grace" and many, many articles and interviews I have read over the years. I'm co-webmaster of ShakiraMedia.com so I would say I know what Im talking about. The promotional pictures are from SonyBMG.de, although they are replaced for more recent photos now. Theyre valid promotional pictures, unless the picture of fête de la musique you uploaded.

DrippingInk would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Hollow Wilerding to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding/Archive 1. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Re: Just a question

user:Rossrs uploaded the sample at the Cool (song) article. Happy New Year to you too. Extraordinary Machine 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By the way, I am aware that you saw my candancy at RfA. Just ignore it, as it has failed because of one incident. Thanks! :) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the end...

"I can no longer participate in this conversation because I have no evidence that I had not travelled to an "internet café". All in all, I am not a sockpuppet of User:Winnermario. If you check her contributions you might note that she was responsible for editing music-related articles only. I've expanded mine to video games, and other areas, covering more ground than she had. Also, the votes presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts are completely different. I supported the nomination, while she opposed it. This is all I have to give."

That is quite alright. I meant no harm in my questioning, nor did I expect you to be able to give any such evidence. I just wanted to see if you could satisfactorily answer my questions, without getting too wound up. As such (that you did and didn't, respectively), you've gained a little more respect in my book.

See y'round Search 4 Lancer 16:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Though I never had any intention of becoming a sysop on Wikipedia ever, DrippingInk sort of inspired me. Perhaps I'll give it another shot in the future. Oh, and... does this indicate that you do not believe me to be Winnermario's sockpuppet? I would hope so, after the message you dropped me ten minutes ago. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care. I just care about honesty. And like I said, I was just testing you. Devil's Advocate, if you will. Search 4 Lancer 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you honestly only care about honesty? Good enough for me. :P —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. What I meant was right now that is what I was looking for! Word twister! Jake shoots flaming arrow in your general direction Search 4 Lancer 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

I've partially restored your lead to remove the repetition and POV, and to more correctly conform to Wikipedia style. While you thought the previous lead was "pathetic", the additions were not entirely encyclopedic. I hope you find the changes agreeable. RadioKirk 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why we should not be able to display Lohan's two studio albums in the article. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

They are in the article; that's why putting them in the intro is repetitious; it also contravenes style as mentioned before.

Off topic, congratulations on your nomination. I, too, was nominated this month; I consider the 6 for/8 against/5 neutral vote a validation of my contributions in such a short time, not a rejection of my abilities as an admin. I hope that helps. :) RadioKirk 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, I didn't make myself clear enough — I apologize. Not in the article, but in the lead. I feel as though I am beginning to make enemies on Wikipedia; was that regard to my RfA a compliment or an insult? Also, I was wondering if you wanted to help me edit the Lindsay Lohan article to substantial quality? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's repetitious, overly long and in contravention to style (as above) to include that much specific detail in a lead when the details follow. Every article could use improvement, no doubt; however, as I note on the talk page, I would be a stickler for information that is encyclopedic and brief.

As for the RfA comment, it's neither a compliment nor an insult; merely hoping my experience might be of some use. Seeing the comments that followed, however, I'm guessing not. FWIW, though, I don't consider you an "enemy" in any way. RadioKirk 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the response. You kind of ignored my one question though: do you want to help me improve the Lindsay Lohan article until it reaches substantial quality? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I already work on the page, I certainly would help; I must note, though, that I already believe it to be of "substantial quality"—after all, I wrote a lot of it (grin)—but, again, there's always room for improvement :) RadioKirk 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Okay, then not substantial quality. Let's say... more or so... FA quality? ;) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That works ;) RadioKirk 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Had I seen the comment? Not really, as I'm not in the habit of browsing other users' talk pages, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Am I concerned? About an anonymous IP asking to press wikicharges against me? Nah. Thanks again, jasonglchu|t|c 19:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira again.

Hey, the controvery that surrounds Shakira's two songs, How Do You Do and Timor are very important, the Latin media has taken in notice that. I believe it contributes to the article's accuracy of being up to date. Don't you think so?

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Okay, I get it. The edit was unnecessarily small. There's no need to put sarcasm on my user page because I caught one single spelling mistake. Wolf ODonnell 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, never mind. I just noticed you had it labelled as a compliment. Boy do I feel sheepish. Wolf ODonnell 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]