User talk:Journalist/Archive 17

Thanks

Hello Orane, I am sorry about your grandmother , Thanks for all the information you give me about the images It helps me a lot ! Thanks, glitterstar

Sorry to see you go

I don't know you at all, I just saw your edit summary in the Recent Changes. Good luck in your endeavors outside Wikipedia, and thanks for contributing. ~MDD4696 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw some edits yesterday...does this mean (hopefully) that you are coming back? Real96 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There are some articles that I wrote (Celine Dion) or contributed to, and I log-in now and again to make sure that they are o.k. But that's it. I'm not a part of Wikipedia's corrupt process anymore. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:-(. Feel free to e-mail me. Real96 08:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

re: A favour

Hey, no problem - I just put Celine on my watchlist. Hope to see you back here soon! - eo 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the award. And I'm very very sorry to read about your grandmother. Take care. - eo 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

question

whats da crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.95.12 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother, who was more than a mother to me, had a stroke and died. All this happened within a day; I didn't even get a chance to say goodbye. Orane (talk • cont.) 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ah hoy

What's this crisis all about eh? Can't even tell me?? :( Best of luck my old friend, I'll see you around. KOS | talk 04:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the reply directly above. KOS | talk 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

hi oran Could I upload that celine dion image again with a creative commons license atribution 2.5 and a Non-free promotional licence with it could I put on the celine dion page again ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitterstar (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Destiny's Child

Oh, but it does! This is the 11th paragraph from www.kellyrowland.com under the Ms. Kelly link:

A founding member and vocal superstar in Destiny's Child, Kelly Rowland proved a major contributing force to the group's record-breaking global popularity as Destiny's Child racked up sales of more than 100 million records worldwide while earning two Grammy Awards in the Best R&B Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocals category (2000: "Say My Name"; 2001: "Survivor").

I think it would be best to take information from an actual member of the group than from other sources.Jdot01 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Condolences

Hi Orane, so sorry to hear about your loss. Our family's prayers are with you -- Samir 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interaction

Greetings! I've just noticed your template and I am sorry to hear of it—my own grandmother also died just a few days ago, while I was out of the country, and a short time before I was to see her again...

I am a bit upset to see this edit of yours. I don't see what is stupid about the phrase you replaced (nor did anyone at FAC) and think it correct either way; a musical analysis, which is what the rest of the article is, is not in itself a biography—though you may include one in a generally biographical article.

And yet even if it had been entirely incorrect I think your words are needlessly insulting, and that there are more considerate ways to correct those who have gotten something wrong. Imagine that you had seen someone write that about your own work: how would you feel about continuing to contribute? Please be more mindful of what you write to others. (This incident in particular came to my notice because it upset someone I consider a friend...) Thanks, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My dear Orane

My dear Orane, it's been a long, long time since we last talked; and to my shame, I haven't visited you since my return a couple of months ago. As I decided it was time see you again, I have received the sad news of your loss. I wish there's more I could do, but to give you a great, great virtual hug is the best I can think of. It has been a long time, but know that I never, ever forgot you, and all your warmth, guidance, kindness and help will stay with me as long as I live, my friend. On a personal note, let me say it is great to see you once again, and I hope this time, we'll remain in touch for many years; and if you ever need a shoulder to lean on, mine is just two clicks away from here. Love you friend! Hugs, Phaedriel - 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Salmoria 15june 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia, and encourage you to continue. Anyway, I have reverted your contribution to the Madonna article. First off, you cannot say that Madonna has the Guinness world record for being "one of" the best selling female artists. The fact that its a record means that she has to be number 1. The same goes for the other records that are listed in her intro. All of the information in the article is sourced, so I do not understand why you are changing it. Secondly, please be careful when adding warning signs to another editor's talk page. Don't just dive into it; try to be a little less rigid. Make sure that you are not making a mistake (like you did with me). Orane (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take some time to read our policy on maintaining a Neutral point of view in articles. While your additions to madonna are sourced, they are needlessly POV in nature.There is a way to state things neutrally with these sources and that is what needs to happen here.Thanks, Salmoria 17june 2007 (UTC).

As an Administrator for Wikipedia, and an editor for many years, I know most of the policies thoroughly. I would advise that you reread the policies on neutrality (WP:Citing Sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV) before you chide others for not abiding by them. To write that a person holds a Guinness World Record is not POV in itself. Maybe the tone of the Madonna article is off —and I agree that it is — and maybe there is undue balance when discussing her achievements and her shortcomings. But the records that she holds should be listed as is, unless you can find reputable sources to challenge them. Now, please do not revert my changes to the article until you have fully understood the guidelines. Orane (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to remind you to be careful of the Three-revert rule, which states that you should not revert an article more than three times within the same day, or you may be blocked for editing by me, or any other Administrator. Orane (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do NOT add false accusations to my talk page. That is evidence in itself that this was not vandalism to request a block and threaten users is against Wikipedia's policy,that was just my work trying to achieve the correct balance. It still is NPOV, even if you yourself didn't write it. And as i said before there is a way to state things neutrally and i hope you understand me. thanks! Salmoria 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ok i'm almost understanding,but look tina's comeback IS the most amazing comeback in Rock and Roll history you can see it here:http://oldies.about.com/od/soulmotown/p/tinaturner.htm ,this source is verifiable,so why it can't be stated there?

second - in spite of what madonna article states, madonna isn't the "most successful female recording artist of all time, with estimated worldwide sales of 200 million albums", and yes, Nana Mouskouri,who sold over 300 million albums, and that need to be fixed. what do you think? And one more thing how celine dion is the "Biggest Selling Female Artist Of All Time" with 175,000 million if Nana Mouskouri and madonna sold more albums??? Salmoria18 june 2007 (UTC).

please take a look at my talk page, replyed something...well i'll edit madonnas page with it: Maddonna is usually hailed as the best-selling, but she.........lets see what happen.

take a look in this site ABOUT NANA : http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:20th%20Century%20Masters%20-%20The%20Millennium%20Collection:%20The%20Best%20of%20Nana%20Mouskouri:1922367941 ...WHAT DO YOU THINK?

one more thing: there are a lot sites that state that tina is the most successful female ROCK singer of al time,one of this sites is a fanclub site and imdb, what do you think?

ok i will add that in tina's article with that source,but what should I do if somebody remove it?.i just need to thank you for wasting your time with me, i'm having a wonderful time learning those new things!!!you're really a wonderful person.THANK YOU,THANK YOU, THANK YOU. Salmoria19 june 2007 (UTC).

hello, yes,somebody changed the material added by me in tina's article,i'm not sure but i think that the user 60.234.242.196(who made the changes) is the same user called Maggott2000 i won't revert his change yet but what should i do?Salmoria20 june 2007 (UTC).

[ HI, I REVERTED THE CHANGE MADE BY 60.234.242.196 OR MAGGOTT2000(SAME PERSON) CITED ABOVE,IF HE REVERT IT AGAIN I'LL LET YOU KNOW. HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!.Salmoria

oh there's no problem!!!

SM3

Your edit broke the sentence, not broke it up. It's generally bad to start a sentence with 'yet', jsut as it's poor form to start with 'Because' too often. Both can open a sentence in certain situations, but the case in question isn't such a situation. The sentence is premised on the contrast between the critical reviews and the large box office take. Separating the two as you did undoes the contrast and the ... subjunctive - IIRC my College English - clause cannot stand alone properly. It would probably have been a grammatically proper change to start that new sentence with 'Despite this, ....box office numbers...' but that would be taking a tacit, subtle, implied contrast and making it blatant, and more verbose. Hope this helps you understand why the edit you made was incorrect. ThuranX 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is premised on the idea that SPD3 got bad reviews, but warm commercial reception. Both clauses are equally important, and are also independent clauses: "The movie got bad reviews." "The movie was popular." (None is subordinate or "subjunctive.") To make the connection between the two sentences, you need a coordinating conjunction (yet, and, but, so...). (As a side note, the fact that the two ideas in the article were connected with "yet" reinforces my point that the two are equally important, and are independent clauses). While you can use one sentence to state the two ideas, in some cases, especially when the sentence is convoluted or unusually long, like this one, perhaps, it's best to separate them to offer a level of clarity for the reader. The implication that the two sentences are closely related carries over into the second sentence, especially because one comes immediately after the other. And because both sentences are independent clauses, a period between them wouldn't be incorrect.

Additionally, one could use a coordinating adverb (however, nevertheless..), which, in my opinion, would be far more appropriate. Consider this: "The film broke most of the opening weekend records, both in the United States, and in foreign markets, including records held in IMAX theaters; however, it received generally mixed reviews from critics, in contrast to Spider-Man 2's highly positive reviews."

PS: I'm an English major at the University of Toronto, and a self-labeled "grammar freak." (Though I'm not implying that I'm always right.) Orane (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PPS: If you maintain that the second part of the idea is subordinate, then it is incorrect to use "yet" in the article. It's correct, however, to state that, "Although the film received generally mixed reviews from critics, in contrast to Spider-Man 2's highly positive reviews, it broke most of the opening weekend records, both in the United States, and in foreign markets, including records held in IMAX theaters." Orane (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First, Canadians have crap-tastic grammar. Just look at how every sentence ends in 'Eh'. Awful linguistics. That aside, your proposed solution in the second postscript works for me. go add it and we're all happy. (just keep any cites attached.)

ps - yes I'm kidding. ThuranX 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

image tags

hi!, i did place the tags on the images. thanks for letting me know that! I just need to know what kind of copyright tag should i add to the [Image:Armani - Tina 2007 - 10.jpg] image or it will be deleted in seven days. Salmoria 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some tension appeared - mediation is needed

Some attack against category Red Army crimes appeared. Discussion is too nervous - article not discussed but deleting procedure started immediately. Some people threaten me starting deleting attack against all my articles. Thanks.

Ttturbo 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Journalist', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:SmackBot (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Journalist/Archive 17, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

-BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day Orane! Best regards, — Moe ε 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are....

WELCOME. I'm just here doing my job!!! Enjoy the rest of the week!!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:11, 03 July 2007 (UTC)

Celine Dion

Hi Journalist, regarding this edit, how did it do more harm than good? I formatted the infobox per Template:infobox musical artist, removed unnecessary piped links as said in WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, and removed piped links to music years as said in WP:MUSTARD#Internal links. But I think I unnecessarily wikilinked full dates in the refs. Although full dates should be linked to adjust to user date preference, most of the refs use templates, so it links it automatically (I use manual refs, so I mistakenly thought it wasn't wikilinked). Anyway, if I didn't do something correct, just point it out. Thanks! Spellcast 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Mariah Carey

I own the picture I uploaded. I received it from the person who took it. This person gave me permission to use it, as well I have all rights to the picture as the person who took it does not have it in her possession anymore. I sent her exact email to Wikipedia and yet you still are in utter denial that the picture is in fact mine. It's mine. Deal with that.--The Knowledge 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're ignorant to the fact that I now own the picture, don't accuse me of stealing it because you don't know. I'd advise you to not speak or make accusations until you actually have an idea what you're talking about.--The Knowledge 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself, sweetheart... simple as that. I've been editing Wikipedia articles since 2004 so be careful who you call a newcomer, honey. Besides, I already have a confirmation from Permissions allowing me to use it. You have no authority and no say in this. Move on. --The Knowledge 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

50 Cent

Hi Journalist, I've brought up this heading issue on the Talk:50_Cent#Heading page. I think the new heading is a bit redundant, but feel free to comment there. Thanks. Spellcast 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'Biography' for the meantime. It's just that it has been that way for a long time and already there's opposition. But if there's consensus to have it changed on the talk page, I'll be more than happy to have it changed. Spellcast 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, since there hasn't been any reply for almost a week now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings), I think there would be a better response at the main MoS talk page. So would it be alright with you if the discussion was pasted on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Spellcast 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orane, I know this discussion was over a month ago. But I'm just leaving a message and saying you're right about the "Biography" heading. The whole article is a biography and not just one particular section. I realised how unnecessary it looked when I was some discography pages with "Discography" as one of the headings. So yeah, I don't want to linger on this for too long, I just thought I'd tell you that yes, there are better alternatives. Spellcast 05:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Asia Nitollano

It seems the IPs were right after all: Elfman, Doug. Next Pussycat Doll snubs opportunity: Winner decides to take her chances and go solo. Chicago Sun Times. July 23, 2007. Pandacomics 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Celine_rocks.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Celine_rocks.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

22 Greatest Voices in Music

I have been on a break but I wanted to continue the discussion we were having about the AfD of the titled article. You assert that one has to state 'why' and article should be deleted. This is not correct. You must have a reason for bringing an article up for deletion, but not a reason to delete. My reason was clear. I have seen some nominate their own article because they weren't sure it was NPOV or had credible sources. I have also seen admins take articles off PROD and bring them to AfD. By taking the speedy tag off the article it would be a COI for me to bring it to AfD and then state 'why' it needs deletion. I hope you can see my view. And yes, when people said 'delete per nom' I was quite dismayed. I never stated I wanted the article deleted. I just wanted it to go through the correct process. Have a good weekend. the_undertow ^talk 20:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are WELCOME. In behalf of the committee, we're just doing our job. Enjoy the rest of the week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)

Your assessment of the sales data being used on this article is incorrect. All articles are made up of mix and match of details as they are found and sourced. In this particular case, there is one reference that specifies the singles sold, and there is one article that is a "better"(IFPI) source that specifies albums sales. These are referencing two specific and quite different facts. It is not an attempt to enlarge the sales of the articles subject. It is using the verified sources to specify the facts. There is nothing wrong with the IFPI article specifying the album sales regardless of whether the other source also reports the sales data. You will also find this common place in any of the sales figures mentioned in any artists sales. In most cases if IFPI, RIAA, UWC, or press releases by the record companies take preference over other sources - as has been done this time Maggott2000 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is your assessment of sales data that is incorrect. It is well-known that "album sales" are often taken to mean total worldwide sales; not every source will specify x amount of albums and x amount of singles. What many editors are doing (the Madonna article being the most-potent example) is to combine two different sources, using the highest figures of each source to suit their purpose.

Let's look at it a different way. Do you think the editors would have used the IFPI source if it stated, for example, that Madonna's sales were 150 million "albums"? I doubt it.

That is why other editors are there to correct the details. I am always correcting (including lowering) sales detail regardless of the artist. The aim is to get the most factual detail. Maggott2000 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that this practice exists in other articles. That doesn't make it right, and I'll try to correct it when I see it. I can never understand the fuss about who has sold more... Orane (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with it. This has nothing to do with who has sold more, it is factually determining what they sold Maggott2000 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

'logical' punctation

Hi there,

Not being North American, I put the final punctuation outside the quote marks, unless it's part of the quote (except, by convention, in direct dialogue in fictional registers). It's the only logical thing to do, and US style guides should get over it and move on, in my view, Chicago included. I was pleasantly surprised to find that WP uses the so-called logical format. However, it irritates a lot of North American editors, who don't see the benefits. I strongly recommend that you follow MOS on this. Tony 08:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag in Madonna (entertainer)

You added this tag without any reference to why in the discussion page (unless "fancruft" was for this). I have therefore taken the liberty to add a section in the discussion page. Maggott2000 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

I'm curious as to why you reverted the edits contributed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult this morning. This editor added references and expanded the lead in a fairly minor way, which was supported by both the references that were added as well as the reference that already existed in the paragraph. I'm asking because you didn't add a reason for the reversion and only said in the following edit that you "fixed lead." I was under the impression we should always include an edit summary, and especially when it involves reversion of material supported by a citation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fall Out Boy

I reverted your edit because if you had bothered to look at the talk page you'd know that there has been much discussion and debate over this and a consensus has been reached. Also, if you read the article for emo music, you'd know that their music does not fall into that genre. Also, if you read the details of the infobox template, you'd know that you're only supposed to list the main genres in it, not sub-genres, such as emo and pop-punk. Lastly, your edit summary was inappropriate and uncivil, so you may want to check those in the future. While WP is not censored, it's no justification for being a dick. With that said, I'll be changing it back to the way it was, which is the way it was when it received GA status. Regards, LaraLove 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that many other reliable sources say nothing about emo, including all official sites of the band. LaraLove 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to encounter another editor and be shocked that they have an admin bit. The fact that you visit an article—one that I have invested the most edits in and raised to GA status—and make your edit number two to it with an edit summary of "god damn it. don't know why you people must make stuff so complicated. all music guide lists these genres/styles. lets just stick with that" gives me full right to point out that you're being a dick. And trust, I don't throw that around lightly, only where appropriate.

With that said, you obviously have no idea what emo is nor do you care to find out, as you stated yourself. So don't make inaccurate changes to an article based on one source. They have an emo look, but they don't have an emo sound. Black hair and eyeliner does not an emo band make. Past that, the discussions that went on with the article did not involve all new editors. It involved editors who have worked on the article, it cited many different sources, therefore not original research, and we discussed what we felt was best considering various sources of various reliability had conflicting information. We concluded that sources from the band and their label were the best to go by. Not to mention that anyone that knows anything about emo can determine from listening to their music that they are not. So don't devalue the work of other editors based on edit count or time registered considering you don't know how long any of us edited before registering, nor do you have any idea about our knowledge of the topic and related topics.

As far as the disputed sub-genres being in the infobox, I didn't put that there and I'm actually glad it's gone. There was debate over that as well. The editor that put it there (Dr.Who, I believe, but I could be wrong, maybe Spuddy 17) will shit a brick when s/he sees it's gone, but whatever. Not my problem now. LaraLove 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Being an admin, you really need to watch things like swearing: cussing like drunk sailors unprovoked in very uncivil edit summaries. Rlevse 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there.

For the two years that I've been an Admin, I've carried out my duties with pride. I'll state here explicitly that I will never use the Admin tools to harm Wikipedia in any way whatsoever.

Nevertheless, there are many aspects of Wikipedia that really exasperate me, one of which is POV pushing into articles about pop singers. You need to worry about the fact that idiots add crap (yes, I said "crap") like, "the album spent a mammoth 99 weeks in the top 100," rather than the fact that I use "oh shit," "god-damn it," or "what the fuck" on extremely rare occasions to express my frustration.

There are far more worrying things about Wikipedia than the fact that I occasionally use Pg-13, and not G-rated, edit summaries.

And patronizing editors with misplaced concerns is another aspect of Wikipedia that I grow weary of. Orane (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's the language as the fact that you are so condescending to others. the_undertow ^talk 01:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Really, I am. But have you read a Famoso magazine review? I actually e-mailed the editor of the magazine, who informed me that the online version is not written by professionals. And it's so obvious. Here's an excerpt from a review of Jennifer Lopez's album found on their website: "Midway through the album it hits a slow point with a few old school Latin dance tracks and a slow song called 'Never Gonna Give Up' which just didn’t feel right from start to finish making you think it was going to break out into a fast dance beat but then would come back down into a slow song and towards the end finally gets bass to it but most people would click past it before that point." And that's one of the clearer points. Now, what exactly would you put in an edit summary when reverting something like this? The third example that you pointed out was a comment I had made on a discussion for deletion. I feel I was spot on. I was not disrespectful, I simply stated the obvious. I'd rather be frank than be fake. Orane (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not patronizing other users. You should realize that incivility is not appropriate by anyone, much less an admin. If wiki exasperates you, you either need to change the way you deal with it or find another outlet. Rlevse 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The comments were not directed at you; perhaps the editor knows the other editor and they talk to each other that way... To be honest, some of the example of incivility you provided seem bogus to me. He was straight-forward but not uncivil in the deletion page. The example that seems valid is the one about "you people keep making things complicated." Yet, it is a subjective assessment. My point is that no one seems to be complaining about bad comments directed at them by this user. I have never dealt with the owner of this talk page, so I cannot tell you how I feel about him; but I feel you should cut him some slack since he has not really said anything to you. If what he wrote really bothers you you'd be more efficient at getting you point across in different ways. Perhaps I read some hostility in your comments the way you read it in his...? Brusegadi 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that you will have a prosperous career as a defense attorney seeing as your rationale is 'hey, he didn't say anything to you.' This difference I provided in the AfD should have been this one where he praises one user while telling all others that they have no idea what guidelines are. As far as getting my point across, how better than to provide the edits that I find problematic? the_undertow ^talk 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I dont want to be a defense attorney. You know, wikipedia is not a court of law, and last time I checked we were not "judging" this user so, it is hard to believe that you are giving friendly advice (you have not claimed to be doing so, but, then, what are you doing here?) since your edit summary is "Closing Argument" and you view diffs as evidence (e.g. facts that I find problematic.) To me, wikipedia is a community and, in a community, those who go around spying on others and constantly criticizing others are normally the gossipers. Finally, if what you truly want is to influence "his ways"; notice the way he reacted to your advice and notice the way he reacted to mine... Perhaps instead of an attorney, I should be an adviser??? Brusegadi 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean we weren't judging the user? I felt he was being condescending in his edit summaries. That's a judgment call, so I don't know where you got the impression that I wasn't judging - I clearly was and I'm not going to use semantics to hide the fact that it was anything else. We are all constantly judged; it's just a fact of life. As far as the adviser, you would need to a little harder at a situation in order to offer advice. For example, you consider this 'spying,' 'gossip,' and 'constant' criticism. Instead of just calling me a gossip, I get a cute little anecdote about the community and my place in this community. Looking at a user's contributions is simply not a covert action, although YOU may feel the need to dress like James Bond while doing so. If you feel that directly approaching the user is 'gossip' then your definition of gossip what I would consider to be completely opposite of the accepted connotation. And 'constant' criticism is simply an arbitrary statement. What edits in my history lead you to this judgment? In any event, I'm cool with Journalist's responses, and since he's asleep and I'm over it, I'm going to bed. the_undertow ^talk 07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wrote this. My bad. Sorry for misjudging the hand that fights vandalism! Brusegadi 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to The under_tow→I'm wondering if it was the way I worded my comment, because I've re-read it a million times and I fail to see anything wrong with it. After I made the first comment that hardly anyone had given valid reasons why the article should be deleted (it is, after all, a debate in which the content of the comment is of most importance, not the simple declaration of "delete","keep") an editor had responded to me with very thorough points. I told him that his points were valid, and he displayed knowledge of the deletion policies. I didn't state that the others did not know the policies, but that their comments had not displayed knowledge of the policies (meaningless "delete per nom," which is particularly confusing when the nominator himself provided no reason). I criticised the comment, not the editors. Do you know the deletion policies? Yes, you do. Did your comment display sensitivity to the policies? No, it did not. It's a valid and respectful criticism. Orane (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When you said I failed to give a rationale, that was no failure. I made it clear that it was a procedural AfD. I know that there are just some semantics involved but when you criticize someone's comment, it reflects upon that person, and not everyone thinks that there is a great separation between criticizing an action of a person and the person itself. "You people" is never justified because it's always going to be demeaning. Anyway, you already said you could tone it down, and that's something that you could do and I could do as well. the_undertow ^talk 07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem here. You go through the thousands and thousands of contributions I have made to Wikipedia, and managed to find three or four instances of me expressing my anger (not directly to anyone in particular), and you think you're doing the project some benevolent favour by highlighting them. Well, it may come as a surprise to know that Admins are humans too. Orane (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that that editor probably did not even find them himself, he voted here and somebody brought it up. Simply hit CTRL+F and search for 'drunk sailors' to spot the right place on the page. If you ask me, I think it was hilarious, made my day more fun; so thanks! I think you are well within your rights to express yourself as you like. Telling you not to amounts to censorship. I have observed disputes where some people denied the existence of the Holocaust and completely celebrated their Nazi views. I am not against them expressing such opinions on wikipedia (opinions that scare the shit out of me), so I do not see why anyone should be against you typing an occasional, stress-relieving, 'fuck.' Unlike conservapedia, wikipedia was never meant to be built by school children for school children. Have fun, Brusegadi 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. I admit that I may have taken things too far on the "you people keep making things complicated" comment, but I never meant it as a personal attack. I meant that editors in general often over-complicate things. Dealing with pop music-related articles is an extremely daunting and frustrating task as they are the most-vandalized and are among the poorest articles on Wikipedia, and instead of commending editors for trying to adhere to and enforce the NPOV and NOR policies (so that the encyclopedia isn't seen as a joke), we are admonished and sometimes rebuked for writing "fuck" instead of "gosh darn." Editors and Admins alike expect Admins to be saints, and when they fail to follow the rules to a T, the rules are thrown in their faces (as if they had no idea the policies existed), and they are made examples of. And while I'm assuming good faith, I can't help but wonder if people think that a 20 year old is too young to be an Admin [1]. (Not that I'm insinuating that my age is the main reason for this exchange of words. I admit that I could tone it down — not everyone is as liberal as I am — but there was definitely no need for all of this.) Orane (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Need advice"... I think some people are just jealous and overly 'upper class.' In the spirit of his words, I hope you see the "errors in your ways" becuase I sure do not. Brusegadi 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am young and it is hard to offend me. I have seen admins and bureaucrats curse and say arrogant things a bit worst than anything you have said, so, do not worry. To make a long story short, you may run into people that feel that certain language is not cool. So, if your objective is to prove that you can do certain things, then, keep it up. If, however, your objective is something more constructive towards the quality of wiki (judging by your contributions I'd think that you want to help the project and not your self) I think it might be more efficient to practice being in a formal setting and write formally while here. This may help you improve your writing, and, at the same time, you will be able to amicably reach a broader audience with your comments. I edit some articles where experts in the subject matter have to put up with much arrogance from semi-informed people. I became an editor here because I truly admired the patience of some of these guys putting up with horrible comments. These are people who have a PhD in their field and yet, they put up with some Joe saying "you, and all other researchers, are wrong, look at this newspaper article..." My edits on wikipedia have a social aspect, which is the improvement of a free source of knowledge; but the private benefits are also very great; I learn new things about the world and I learn how to apologize over trifle matters. When the other user seems to just be looking for a fight, the best thing to do is to apologize. It will make your life easier. Sorry for this long message, but I feel friendly today and I took on this opportunity to meet you. Hopefully I'll see you later under a different set of circumstances! Brusegadi 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may chime in, Orane I understand where you are coming from, with your comments about things that are making you weary of Wikipedia. I'm sure everyone who has something to say in this discussion can relate. And you are absolutely correct when you say "I admit that I could tone it down" that's fair advice that I believe you should heed. I don't believe Rlevse or anyone else is trying to be condescending toward you, they are just expressing their concern over the tone you have used in your edit summaries. (Though I don't have a clue what your age has to do with anything...) I myself was a little surprised by some of what you said, though like I said before I understand why you feel that way. While I don't believe you've been particularly uncivil towards anyone specifically, I'd like to suggest that you just take a deep breath count to 5, let off your frustration out loud to yourself when you come across POV and OR, fix the mistakes and move on. Collaboration is the key here my friend, and your comments can alienate potential contributers. Happy editing.

P.S. I owe you a joke, it's been far too long has it not? KOS | talk 06:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read all this and looked at the diffs. I think KOS sums it up well. When comments are made like calling others' edits "crap" and "juvinile and amature (sic)", people may get upset and the wrong impression, intended or not, is given. Since WP:CIVIL is applies here, I looked it up and under "More serious examples include" it lists "Profanity directed at another contributor". Since at least some of these diffs refer to edits of others, I can see where that applies. As both Rlevse and KOS mention, we all need to be careful in what we write on wiki. I also agree that admins need to be more careful. My two cents.Sumoeagle179 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As the one who originally pointed out some of these edits elsewhere, I feel inclined to comment. Cursing in edit summaries is not in itself necessarily a bad thing. WP is not censored, so that's not where I took particular issue. For me, it was the "god damn it people" comment. That was made as your second edit to an article I took to GA. It's a good quality article and I maintain it. As I discussed with you previously, I've been through this emo bullshit countless times, so I can honestly sympathize with you and your frustration with such issues. Really. So see it from my point of view: I'm a custodian of that article and I've had to revert emo and other random genres out of it so many times that I ended up putting a notice on the edit page and on the talk page. Long, drawn out discussion resulted in using what the record label and band classify FOB as, then the "disputed subgenres" was a compromise for taking out punk and emo. Your edit summary was extremely insulting to me, as well as your edit being just another edit against consensus and guidelines. So we share the same frustration exactly. Perhaps that's something you should consider in such edit summaries. And perhaps you should consider studying genres and bands before making changes as to avoid any that may be inaccurate, as in this case. And insulting edit summaries are never okay. Cursing light-heartedly in an edit summary is one thing, but that was most certainly not light-hearted or appropriate, particularly for an admin. Lara❤Love 03:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Hello

I would like to suggest new titles for this article. Currently it is: Early Career, Whitney, Internation Success, Just Whitney

I think those are not correct. Her debut album shouldn't be with "Early Career" and Whitney is only 87-89, that leaves out I'm Your Baby Tonight. Also International Success is misleading. She has worldwide success in the 80s, it didn't start in the 90s.

I would like to suggets these: Early Career (77-84) - includes the experimental work, nightclub, arist contract, duets with Teddy Pendergrass Debut Album (85-86) - this includes her debut album with was an event on its own. Continued Success (87-91) - this includes Whitney and I'm Your Baby Tonight. HollyWood Success (92-98) - this includes the movie career and soundtrack (bodyguard, waiting to exhale, preachers wife, cinderella My Love Is Your Love (99-2000) - this is when she became relevant again amongst young people and inlcudes My Love Is Your Love and Greatest Hits album Commercial Decline - this is when her downfall really got going, it includes Just Whitney and One Wish.

Thank You

-Keisha S

Thank you.

I truly appreciate your apology, thank you very much. And I understand your frustration, really. This place has it's way of making people lose their cool. Been there, done that. So, again, thank you for your thoughtful apology. Lara❤Love 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah dood. We're cool - always were. If I didn't dig you, I wouldn't bother saying anything at all. As for me, you didn't owe me an apology. I didn't like your phrasing, but I misinterpreted it, which isn't your fault. So, it's all good. the_undertow ^talk 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you deserve this

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I'm very happy to see you make amends for your mistakes, I think it very fitting that you have this barnstar. KOS | talk 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A professor was giving a big test one day to his students. He handed out all of the tests and went back to his desk to wait. Once the test was over, the students all handed the tests back in. The professor noticed that one of the students had attached a $100 bill to his test with a note saying "A dollar per point." The next class the professor handed the tests back out. This student got back his test and $56 change. :)

Well deserved. And that story is comedic GOLD! :P Lara❤Love 04:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fall out Boy

Thanks. I appreciate it. Expanding it further has been on my to-do list for some time. So consumed by GA project stuff that I haven't had time for the things I really want to work on, but I'm starting my GA wikibreak next week, so the FOB article will be my focus. Perfect timing, thank you! Lara❤Love 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:15 4 October 2007 (GMT).