User talk:Keraunoscopia/Archive 1

Kerαunoςcopia^◁ _{This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.}

2010

2011→

Stale Miley Cyrus talk sections

Is there a simple way to archive all these stale conversations / monologues? -- Timberframe (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and do it; I've been meaning to give it a whirl anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Kerαunoςcopia

Nice one, thanks! -- Timberframe (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star!

		The Minor Barnstar
		For catching the tiny but significant things on Wikipedia, I award Keraunoscopia this tiny but significant star. Liquidluck✽talk 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because tiny things have a habit of growing. Thanks again! Liquidluck✽talk 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Kalmah 12 gauge album cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kalmah 12 gauge album cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response! I added the {{album cover fur}} template to bring the album cover in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I also removed the no-fair-use template. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_talk 07:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright with me. It's just good to know the concern has been addressed. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus photo

Hey, I was just wondering about your recent edit at Miley Cyrus where you had to create a new version of the Academy Awards picture of Miley because you said the original crop was "squeezed"? When I cropped the photo it was weird what happened... it looked squeezed at first but then when I refreshed the page or went into another browser altogether, the newly cropped picture fit normally. Can you check my revision here once again and see if the photo still looks "squeezed" to you? I just wanted to know if it looks normal now to others as well (it did look squeezed for me at first). It's weird how Wikipedia works... I'm not sure what went wrong. We can still keep your newly created picture but I just wanted to see if the image still looks squeezed. Thanks for your help. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CIS, I checked your revision and it looks normal. I really don't know what the cause of the squeezing was. If it hadn't been squeezed, possibly I would have fixed the contrast in the image anyway. (As subtle as I kept the sharpening, when the image is shrunk down to its current "infobox" size, it begins to look "over-sharpened.") If you think the alternate looks better, feel free to change it! I really only got involved because the squeeze stood out so much. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_talk 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! Yeah, I can't figure out what was wrong with that picture and why it was getting squeezed (at least for the first little while), but it's happened to me before when cropping photos so I just wanted to find out if others were still seeing a squeezed photo after refreshing the page. The contrast and other editing you did to the photo looks great! I have no problems keeping it, I was just curious as to the squeezing issue. Thanks again for your help with that! Cheers. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Stone Temple Pilots' sixth studio album

Hello Keraunoscopia. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stone Temple Pilots' sixth studio album, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. Ged UK 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the definition of WP:R2; I thought it was referring to redirects in general, except those for Category:, Template:, etc... Thank you for letting me know! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Redirects for Deletion is probably the best venue for this. Ged UK 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

I understand what you're saying, but for instance Lavigne's started recording her first album in 2001, but the section says 2002.......and she started recording her second studio album in 2003, but the section says 2004.....so, why shouldnt the section of her fourth album be the same??.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detty2.0 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work on the Wintersun article :) Mushroom (Talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mary_fahl_the_other_side_of_time.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mary_fahl_the_other_side_of_time.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are so quick! I am in the process of starting up the article and thought I would throw the cover up first as a means of efficiency. I noticed it wasn't happy with that; next time I'll add the cover after the article page has been created. Thank you for notifying me! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Fahl

I believe as the author or creator of the category, you can simply add {{db-author}} to have it speedily deleted. For the most part, eponymous categories are just unnecessary. As for my username, nice job figuring that out. I'll split it up this way, and you should be able to see my various geek interests. -- Star|Cheers|Peaks|News|Lost|Wars 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I will delete it : ) I like peaks too (Colorado native) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weilandsuit2008.jpg

Your speedy tagging of File:Weilandsuit2008.jpg was inappropriate, because you tagged it on en.wiki. The image is not hosted on en.wiki, so therefore en.wiki admins cannot delete the image. The image is hosted on the Commons, and simply "shows through" to en.wiki. Therefore, you need to repeat your deletion request at the Commons. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I should have realized that. Thank you for letting me know! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mary Fahl albums

I restored the category. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MrKIA11 – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wintersun Track list

No problem, it's what I'm here for. I have a copy of Wintersun's debut album so I knew there was a track missing on here. Glad I could be of help, even if it was only a small contribution.

King of Judah —Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Judah (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill

Why the need to remove the wiki link ? The word 'bill' has numerous, and sometimes totally unconnected meanings, in English. Might not the 'international' reader somewhat appreciate this clarification ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be disambiguated, but "bill" being wikilinked to Billboard is incorrect. I'm merely undoing the "Billboard" connection. I don't know what "bill" would link to otherwise. Obviously you can reconnect it, but it would need to be more specific than "Billboard." Apologies for the hassle. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unwelcome welcome

Seriously, I appreciate your welcome but do you always talk like trade agent or school teacher? Just revert mockery and move on to something else. Don't make wikipedia sound like serious business™, kthx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.89.101.156 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice

The link is working but it needs an account to verify it. Wikipedia is not againt that kind of reference. It's the only reliable source for Bubbling Under positions. Decodet (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine now; I swear that yesterday, clicking on it took me to a "Bad Command" page or something... just a glitch I think, possibly on my end. I re-read the WP:PAYWALL policy and you're right. Verifiability doesn't always equate to ease of access. I re-added the information (someone had removed it completely). Cheers! –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified: this is in regards to the article Alice (Avril Lavigne song). I'm not sure what happened on the singles section of the Lavigne discography, whether you wanted the information included or not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to message here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:58.165.122.22

Hi. I actually didn't mean to revert your edit - just the one before yours, but I dunno, I must have noobed it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.191.90 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No problem : ) –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

That text, didin't have the tag Ref, so i think that doesn't stay here. See pt:Alice (canção de Avril Lavigne) for more imformation, all the text have ref. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained it to you already: the entire section "Concept" is covered by a single source, the YouTube video. Why on earth would paragraphs need to be referenced each and every time there's a new paragraph? You can change the wording if you don't like it, but do not remove entire sections simply because you don't understand where the source is coming from. And you can do whatever you want on your language Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia, the article to Alice (Avril Lavigne song) follows the guidelines very closely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alice

Didn't know that, thank you ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Cheers! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclamation points

Hi, I saw your edits last night about the "!vote" exclamation points, and I want to explain what was going on with that. Strange as it looks, it is a custom at Wikipedia, intended to indicate that consensus is not determined simply by counting votes. It's explained at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Straw poll guidelines, near the bottom of that section. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... whoops! Apologies for removing those; I was wondering why there were so many examples of them. Thank you for letting me know. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LDR

Glad to see that the LDR citation style is what you wanted. (this discussion) I've love to see it taken to the next level, so that only a footnote number appears in the edit window, but I was happy to see they could create the LDR concept within the existing software. I'm slowly trying to push this concept, hope you will join me. If you are interested in citation styles, you may be interested to know that there is work on a new version of the reftools gadget. Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar#Please_try_the_new_version.21. I just found this today, and plan to look to see what new features it has, and to propose ways to automatically create in LDR format. Not sure whether it is feasible, but always helpful to ask when they are working on a new version.--SPhilbrick T 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sphilbrick, the LDR style is definitely something I've been wanting for a while now, again thanks for informing me of it. I'll be converting "stable" articles to LDR as I find the time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre changes

As you may have noticed, Babyjazspanail changed all genres for Avril Lavigne singles to a list (I did the same for her albums). I just changed all of the genres so that they now start with a capital letter. I asked Babyjazspanail before I did it and they seemed okay with it but I just wanted to check with you to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. It just makes sense to me that, as it's now a list, they can all start with a capital letter. Zylo1994 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed (busy in real life) but I agree completely with the capitalizations. The list format helps readability too, I think, especially since citations sometimes clutter up the small space afforded in the infobox. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn White

Shaun White cropped and centered. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

the page "I Wanna" for the All-American Rejects has charts availible on billboard.biz, and you seem to have access. Please follow the reference links for the charts with question marks see we can find the additional chart information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.86.94 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A doubt

Hi there KERAUNOSCOPIA, VASCO here,

I have a doubt that i hope you, as the (last) main editor on Core (album) can solve: i saw, some years ago, in ONLY ONE site, that the track "Where the river goes" had been written by a MARTIN WEILAND.

I know that Scott Weiland had (at least) one brother, that passed away while Velvet Revolver was being formed, but that's about it; moreover, all the other sites (i do not have the official CD, just a copy) credit the track to only WEILAND, so one assumes it is SCOTT.

Can you enlighten me on that one? Have a great weekend, from Portugal,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, was just trying to get my facts straight...VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vasco, sorry for not responding sooner. I've been busy in real life. I own a CD copy of Core and can check this information out eventually, but the CD is currently in storage. I've otherwise never heard of Martin Weiland having written anything for STP. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize my friend, i should have for being so hasty. I think it may have been a typo of that site, must have been S. WEILAND. Thanks for your kindness, and sorry for any incovenience on my part.

Regards from Portugal, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just an fyi for you. During the discussion on filmography tables on WT:ACTOR, I copied your comments on the table heading from Talk:Miley Cyrus where you endorsed the color filmography table heading here. I thought it would helpful for you to know that Jack Merridew responded by saying that the IP I mentioned was blocked for personal attacks (which has since expired) and dismissed your valid comment as meatpuppetry, saying "The others you quote were set-up by the troll." If you care to respond, the comment is there. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the above to be canvassing and a bad faith mischaracterization of what I said; I in no way implied that you were a meatpupet, only that the troll-IP misled you; i.e. that the troll was engaging in improper behavior. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I made my opinion on the matter known on the Talk:Miley Cyrus page. Otherwise, I'm not too interested in getting involved, thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Barnstar?

Hi, I wanted to give Scott M. Howard a Barnstar to let him know we appreciate all his recent deletions and the new template for Avril Lavigne articles but I'm not sure which Barnstar is suitable. Would the Editor's Barnstar be appropriate? Zylo1994 (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zylo! Sure, I think that one is suitable... but what I would do first (if you haven't already done so) is check to see what other barnstars he's already received, and then check out personal user awards and other awards, just in case there's something a little more eye-catching or one that he hasn't received yet that you'd like to give. It's all personal preference, of course. No matter what, though, it's a great way to show your appreciation. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warning

Hi I've added this genre warning to the Avril Lavigne single 'Complicated' (and hope to add it to all the singles and albums) and wanted to know if I was doing the right thing...

USERS PARTAKING IN GENRE WARRING WILL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM
1. Please only add genres you have a reliable source for!
2. Please try to keep the genres accurate and concise!
3. If you feel there is a genre that desperately needs to be added but you have no source, start up a discusion on the Talk Page!

I know you must be tired of my constant questions but I just wanted to check I was doing everything right...for the last point about not having a source, I thought that maybe if a single really needed a genre but there was no source to be found (the case with 'Losing Grip'), everyone could discuss its importance on the article's Talk Page and maybe add it into the article with a 'citation needed' caption - what do you think?

Thanks and again sorry for bothering you Zylo1994 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zylo, you're not bothering me with questions at all, you're always welcome to ask anything. : ) I'm a pretty big proponent for anything to stop genre warring, and I find that having citations for each genre is one of the most effective ways to stop people throwing in their opinions. All that's left is to crack down on the references which aren't reliable, and that can be as subjective an argument as which genres to include. If there's no reliable source to be found, then definitely a discussion is a great idea, because that can be used to keep genre warring at bay. I wouldn't even use the citation needed template (not in the infobox, at any rate) because if it's been discussed, then that should be good enough. The citation needed template, though, can be tagged in the article body itself, if needed. So everything looks good to me : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great so if I started up a discussion on Losing Grip, The Best Damn Thing (song) and Under My Skin for the post-grunge, pop punk and softrock genres, then I would be able to remove the citation needed templates as long as I had enough support for them? I'll put the genre warning into all singles and albums now...thanks! Zylo1994 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

Hey, I'm taking on the GA review for Avril. I saw the familiar sig on the talk page and thought you might be interested! The review will be at Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1 if you want to help out. I'll make some initial comments before too long. Feel free to leave a not on my talk page if you want me. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Charts

I noticed not long ago you were asking questions about Alternative Songs on the talk page of WP:record charts. well after several weeks of research, a week of long discussions and 3 days of intensive editing i've put together the WP:USCHARTS. its a manual of style for using billboard charts and i've done my best to outline which billboard charts are acceptable and which are deeemed components. I thought i'd share this info with you for future reference. Happy editing. Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is amazing, very helpful. Thank you for letting me know. I've just used it to remove the Alternative Songs component chart in place of the Rock Songs on another article. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think its come from many discussions and questions over billboard charts so really others have already laid the foundations i've just gone ahead and done it with a consensus. It is a work-in-progress still so it will develop over time. I'm glad its of use. did you find it easy to use? also if you make any discoveries about billboard please feel free to leave on the policy's discussion board and then i can work it into the guide. Finally if you have any trouble with editors who keep saying things like but "Alternative Charts" is a genre not a component simply direct them to the page at WP:USCHARTS. that's its purpose after all. Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was very easy to use; I looked up the questionable chart, saw that it should be replaced, and made the change myself. I mentioned the shortcut in the edit summary to direct anyone who questioned my edit. I'm also very new to the charts thing, so your page was very helpful in clarifying several elements as well. Excellent work! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative songs chart

why did u remove the Alternative Songs chart from the Between The Lines song article? u do know there are 3 rock charts from Billboard, right? Look at all the song articles that have all 3 charts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1287 (talk • contribs)

Hi David1287, actually, I explained why that chart is supposed to be removed on the talk page here: Talk:Between_the_Lines_(Stone_Temple_Pilots_song). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You two seem to edit warring over this, despite a discussion on the talk page. Please stop reverting each other, because both of you may end up being blocked for edit warring. Both of you have been warned now. Any further reverts regarding this issue to that article will lead to a block for continued disruption. — ξ ^xplicit 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit, my apologies for participating in an edit war. I was doing my best to follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle method, and I found myself the only one taking an active participation in the discussion (even responding to myself). I did learn a few things: policy vs. guidelines, EW/reversions are not vandalism, and finally to keep myself at one reversion at most, if at all. I'll walk away from this a bit wiser. Thanks for stepping in. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consensus between us

listen here. I don't want to get in trouble for this. u do know that Billboard is consisted of individual charts. There are three rock charts: Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks, Alternative Songs and Rock Songs. I don't consider these charts component to others. There are songs that peaked higher in Rock Songs than in Alternative Songs. For example, Between The Lines by Stone Temple Pilots, Your Decision by Alice In Chains, The Good Life by Three Days Grace. Just because they peaked higher in Rock Songs, doesn't make the Alternative Songs more vulnerable. If u noticed STP's discography page, the Alternative Songs chart is there. Every rock song's wiki page have all the 3 rock charts, which is where I request the Alternative Songs should be back in the Between The Lines page.David1287 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David 1287. I've already stated my reasons why the Alternative Songs chart should be removed from the article. You just stated above, "I don't consider these charts component to others." This is your opinion, not necessarily fact. Consensus on the "Between the Lines" article was already reached, including support from an admin you brought in and a third opinion from an outsider. So you need to take the good fight elsewhere: begin a discussion and reach consensus on the WP:CHARTS project. Ignore "Between the Lines" for now... start from the source. Why do you think the Alternative Songs chart isn't a component to Rock Songs? If it is a component, why do you think it's important enough to be listed on discographies and album articles? Go over there and talk to the editors who know the chart stuff inside and out. With good research (don't ever feel rushed, take your time) and a convincing or strong argument, you may be able to persuade people to accept the Alternative Songs chart as a viable and notable enough chart to be mentioned alongside major charts. Your goal would be to have the AS chart acceptable for inclusion in articles, and for the project articles to be updated to reflect this. Does that make sense? If consensus were reached that Alternative Songs can be listed on articles, then you can add the AS chart to as many articles as your heart desires, and even I will be in support of it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your research and solid contributions to the Stone Temple Pilots article. Keep up the good work! Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Darwin's Bulldog, I really appreciate it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've worked your butt off on making that article good. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for helping out my userpage

Hello, i realized you helped out my page yesterday (April 14, 2010) i just wanted to come by your talk page and tell you that your work is very appreciated & thank you. Sincerly, ~ Dwayne was here! ^talk

Airplay, Billboard & Digital Charts review

Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intersecting arrays

Thought you might have taken this off your watchlist. If you want to get Excel to look up the intersections for you, then paste your data into two columns (you don't need to sort them). Do a create name for the two columns (say 'Lot') and create a name for the second column (say 'Two') (you can just use the arrays, but its clearer in the formula). In the third column, first row, paste the following

=IFERROR(INDEX(Lot, MATCH(A1,Two,0), 2),)

Copy the formula down to the bottom of the array. You should see a line of 0's, except where the entry appears in both columns.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wonderful, I can't wait to try it. Thank you so much. And thanks for posting here, I had unwatched the page. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might have done. If it doesn't work, give me a bell on my talkpage - its easy to miss a comma out or something. And of course, if you have MsAccess, you could just use the Duplicates wizard, which does the same thing and puts the duplicates into a table for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State of

The official title of 46 of the United States is "the State of X", while four of the states use the title "the Commonwealth of X". These are the official titles of these states as written in U.S. law. For example, see Seal of Texas. The capitalized "state of X" should only be used in an informal sense, such as discussing more than one state (e.g., the states of Illinois and Indiana) or one of the four states that use the title commonwealth (e.g., the state of Massachusetts.) Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is written in lay-English, not in legalese, where capitalization of nouns is almost inherently incorrect and always done anyway. Formality has nothing to do with it. If you look at ANY grammar book or website, you will see that "state" is always lowercased, unless it is part of the actual name or clarifier: New York City. Washington State. The city of New York. The state of Washington. It has nothing to do with "more than one state," that is a total fabrication. What's really frustrating is you actually believe this. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to work for one of the 50 states in question, and the states adamant insist on capitalization. Frankly, I don't care, but if Libya gets to call itself the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, I think we can let the 50 U.S. states call themselves whatever they wish. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already referred to state documents in my other reply... let's continue this conversation on either my talk page or your talk page exclusively, not both places. Again, however, Wikipedia is not a legal document, it is not a legal website, it is not a state-owned website, and grammar rules apply to Wikipedia like they would any published article or book. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go over to my side. I think we should tone this down a bit. Buaidh (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Can't Be Tamed

No problem. I just figure the rule of thumb is to give the article title to the album, then disambiguate the (song); not the other way around. If enough people raise a stink about it, they can always be moved again. - eo (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Be Tamed (album) links

{{helpme}} I'm baffled by all the What Links Here links to this deleted page. Why are there nearly 50 links to "Can't Be Tamed (album)"? I can't find the source or connection between them. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these are from old links that have not been removed Ham tech person 02:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a search for the link (or just "tamed") doesn't appear on any of the articles or templates, even in the edit windows of either. I mean, I understand the link concept, obviously, and I've removed most of the links that I can find. But the remaining What Links Here list baffles me completely. Am I missing some invisible link?! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this question to WP:N?. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David1287 and Diamond Eyes

In my three years of contributing to Wikipedia, every disruptive editor I have ever encountered either turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor, in which case an editor familiar with his editing behavior filled out an SPI and the disruptive editor was banned again OR an admin happened to be monitoring the situation for whatever reason and blocked the disruptive editor. So to be honest, I have no idea what to do with David1287. He seems to be under the impression that (a) he does not need to source his contributions (b) if for some odd reason he does need to source his contributions, he can just post whatever he wants in a forum and link that in the article and (c) there is no discussion to be had. I have tried communicating with him on the talk page of the article and the talk pages for both him and his IP. And I know have had this exact same conversation with him before about another charting single, though I cannot remember which one.

He is obviously getting his information SOMEWHERE, but will not add or mention the source. Every week he performs the exact same edit to a handful of modern rock bands. A while back there was an admin who was going to create WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY, an essay (similar to WP:HAMMER or WP:GWARRIOR) that was going to be about editors that feel compelled to create articles or contribute information before reliable sources are readily available. Just to be the first. (The essay has been comically mentioned in several deletion discussions [1]) Billboard releases charts on Thursday, yet every Tuesday or Wednesday, David1287 is here to be the very first to update chart positions. Neat.

So, in general, I think the information he is adding is accurate. Occasionally, early Billboard reports can be off by a few positions. He just has a pesky little problem with ignoring consensus and adding sources, just to be the first. Can an editor be blocked or banned for contributing valid information, but being unwilling to verify it or communicate with other editors? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated! Fezmar9 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to handle David1287 either. If you're finding that his edits are actually accurate, but just unsourced, then I suppose the simplest thing would be to tag his edits with {{citation needed}} and leave it at that for a few days until an actual source can be used. Blocks shouldn't be used as punishment, although WP:BLOCK states, "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment," so if he's been warned enough times on his talk page (four times or so) about adding unverifiable material, then that itself should lead to a temporary block. As for him being a sockpuppet, I don't really know. I'm pretty sure he uses IPs to edit at times, though, either because he forgets to log in or some other reason. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He generally likes to update Alternative Rock and Mainstream Rock charts early. Alternative Rock is still published by Billboard.com, so adding {{citation needed}} is one way to go about this, it just seems counterproductive to add something that I know I will be removing in two days. Especially if I have to do this every week to several articles that David1287 edits. Mainstream Rock is no longer published by Billboard.com, and a citation needed tag would be sitting there for a long long time. Supposedly this chart is still published at Billboard.biz, but to my knowledge there are no Wikipedia editors that subscribe to this site that would be willing to provide refs. And be able to fact check David1287's edits weekly.

As of yet, I do not believe his sock IPs are any reason to cause concern. He isn't claiming to be someone else as a different IP, and isn't trying to persuade consensus or anything. In my experiences, puppetry can really only be disruptive if the multiple accounts communicate with each other to create the illusion of consensus among multiple editors. That, or it's a new account from a previously banned editor. So my guess is that he uses multiple computers, but is just lazy about logging in.

A temporary block sounds like the best action. Do you know if WP:ANI would be the correct place to request a block? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see where the {{cn}} tag would be more of a hindrance than anything. Besides, that would essentially make you his babysitter.

Well, regarding the Mainstream Rock and Alternative Song charts, just FYI, I had the same issue with David1287 including this information on the "Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song)" chart table; meanwhile, according to the guideline WP:CHARTS, component charts shouldn't be listed. According to the working draft WP:USCHARTS, the component charts mentioned can be listed so long as certain criteria are met. I held α discussion on the song's talk page, and David1287 started a discussion on the charts guideline talk page, and consensus was reached in my favor. Someone did mention somewhere that these component charts can be mentioned in a section lead-in (for the Charts section of an article), and I decided what the hey, and these charts are therefore mentioned on "Between the Lines", but not in the actual charts table. (Since you mention that Mainstream Rock Tracks isn't easily sourced, then I may remove this from the article since it's been tagged {{cn}} for a while now.)

Otherwise, in seeking possible resolution, according to Dealing with Disruptive Editors, and as long as WP:3RR isn't being violated, "a rapid report to WP:ANI may be the best first step". So maybe that would be the option you'd like to go with. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of specific image version

{{helpme}} Regarding this image, Is there a way to delete specific versions? In this case, "15:10, 29 April 2010" (the first upload, uploaded by me) may be a WP:HOAX image and hasn't been verified as legitimate artwork for the cover. Also, "15:05, 30 April 2010" (the current version) is the exact same upload as Chasewc91 (talk · contribs)'s upload. The explanation behind that is it's my mistake; my browser shows the birdcage image being his newer upload, so I ended up thinking he uploaded the wrong image again. This was either a cache problem or a Wikipedia problem; either way, in hopes of saving even the tiniest bit of server space, the two images (first and last versions) should be removed. I just don't know how to tag or request specific versions to be deleted. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done, but would not serve the purpose you state - deleted images remain on the servers. Do not worry about performance - it is not a problem. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Chzz! Interesting link too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As I said, it can be done, if there is ever a need - and probably best to use an {{adminhelp}} for that. Otherwise...for any 'general enquiry' or indeed just to say 'hi', please try live help with this or this. Chzz ► 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the secret entrance to the chat rooms. I was wondering how to access those. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second album

Can't Be Tamed is Cyrus' second studio album. Read my justification in the talk page. Many sources like Billboard, Allmusic, and others will agree with me. The only reason why previous editors, which were frankly inexperienced and the administrator was correct, considered it a studio album was because it was her first material not credited to Hannah Montana. That doesn't make it a studio album. Since when have soundtracks and studio albums been sold together? It's a soundtrack. Disney may have marketed is as Cyrus' first release but they never, ever, ever did they state it was a "debut studio album". So leave it as her second album. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate your input. I'll continue this on the talk page. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Miley cyrus cant be tamed.ogg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheetahs San Diego CA.jpg

Thanks for the note; please don't apologise. This isn't a criterion for speedy, but you're free to nominate the old image at WP:FFD if you think it best. If you follow that course, please be careful to note that you're only nominating the old image, not your modification. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you very much for the suggestion! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Be Tamed

Back where it was, dab deleted, hopefully everything cleaned up and protection set to [move=sysop] to prevent a repeat. I found the consensus pretty strong in those 2 discussions, so there should be a new discussion if someone wants to move it in future. It's on my watchlist (along with the web of redirects I just created and deleted!) but let me know if you need anything else. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I really appreciate it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Be Tamed image

I see you changed the image for the music video. I don't think the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not of anything to do with the main plot. It was discussed in the section but its only the cut-scenes in which this appears. Could you change it to a screenshot of her and her backup dancers performing in the cage or throughout the museum? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Let me get back to you in a few moments. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments in my talk page. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered again :) -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But can you make sure to crop out all of the black frame. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone broken URLs

{{helpme}} I saw a conversation somewhere on Wikipedia about how Rolling Stone's website underwent a revamping that more or less broke every link to their articles, etc. I can't locate this discussion anymore, and I'm trying to find an old RS article, which neither Google nor RS.com can seem to locate (so maybe it no longer exists). Any random chance someone knows where this discussion is, because I thought they were working on a solution for relocating broken links. Long shot, but thought I'd try. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#New RollingStone URL. I had this same question last week. Based on the discussion it looks like RS has yet to upload old articles. It's also unknown if they ever will. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Think I found what you are talking about: here, here, here, and here. this is the search I used, and I found it on the second page. :) Hope this helps. ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys rock, those are exactly what I was looking for. Looks like I'm just going to have to remove the info and source (no corroborating stories). I'm going to read all your links provided, thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to search my User:Contributions?

{{helpme}} ... Instead of Find+Keyword for every page of 500 contributions, is there a quick search field that I can use? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, but you could use every page of 1000, or 2000 contribs (change the number in the URL). —fetch ·comms 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never noticed the URL catch. Thanks so much!! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David1287

Saw that you involved in the original. SGGH ^ping! 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I'll be interested in seeing the outcome. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Can't Be Tamed.jpg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image was replaced with redundant, albeit non-fair-use qualifying, image and has been tagged WP:F1. Above image reinstated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Recoverycover.jpg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, the image was unverifiable as real. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eminem not afraid relapse segment.ogg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per WP:CSD. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 onwards

I'm not questioning the value of this edit (except that I think it should be "onward" rather than "onwards"), but would you mind pointing out where in WP:MOSNUM it says that "2009-present" is not appropriate? I just couldn't find it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunster beat me to the punch. I couldn't find any mention of that anywhere either. Personally, I prefer "2009-present" over "2009 onwards" but I could really care less as to which is used. But trying to verify the 'rule', I could find nothing at all referencing that "onwards" should be used over any other format. In fact the word "onwards" doesn't appear anywhere on that article at all. hm. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat, Huntster, I agree that "onward" is preferable to "onwards" — it's not unlike "toward" vs. "towards". I believe I've been using "onwards" because I type that without really paying attention. Now then, to the "–present" issue. I'm actually at a loss for words. I picked up the "–present" --> "onward" change from another editor earlier last year. I'm positive I checked this change with guidelines, and I remember being in the same boat as you guys: "onward(s)" was *not* mentioned in the guidelines, but I figured it was an unlisted option for not using "–present". I recall reading "–present" should not be used anywhere within the body of an article except, in some cases, in infoboxes, for the purpose of succinctness. I've checked WP:MOSNUM and WP:Albums (where I thought it may be listed), but I can't for the life of me recall where I've read this. So I will have to do some digging and locate the guidelines. (I did check the history of WP:MOSNUM through to August 2009, in case any changes had been made.) Until I find this info, I'll refrain from making any more of these edits. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, I'm sort of stunned at not finding anything. But the information does exist somewhere, I'm sure of it. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, ScottMHoward, please feel free to revert my change. I'll consult with both of you when I find the info and before I continue making these edits. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a revert. It's fine either way, I just prefer the "-present". There's a possibility you may be right, as I've seen the "onward" format used in various other places so we might as well just leave it how it is for now since there's no concrete rule found so far. Good luck in the search. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was a fine edit, no need to be concerned. Thanks for replying :) — Huntster (t @ c) 21:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 Gauge (album) GA review

Hello, I've reviewed 12 Gauge (album) and placed it on hold (see Talk:12 Gauge (album)/GA1). Regards, --Beloved Freak 19:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, BelovedFreak. Please ignore the lack of action on the article, I started "pre-production" yesterday for working on your suggestions. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) --Beloved Freak 10:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, it's passed! Good work! --Beloved Freak 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Antti kokko 12 gauge music video.png

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Antti kokko 12 gauge music video.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback}} Beloved Freak 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding multiple links

{{helpme}} Is there a way to find multiple, repeated links in any article, like when trying to clean an article up for overlinking? Or is it simply a matter of finding the overlinks and removing them manually? I was wondering if there was some search "function" that would help with this. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the new find/replace tool and just eliminate all the instances of Foo and then relink the first one. Otherwise, try asking at the VPT for any script or such. —fetch ·comms 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so nothing too fancy exists, then, that's fine. I've always just used Cmd-F/Cmd-G functions and it works quickly. But there's a tad bit of memorization involved. Thanks though! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback}} Beloved Freak 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive thoughts

I'm always glad to encounter editors who encourage others and see the positives in the volunteer work we all do here. I'm not a barnstar person, but kudos to you for the spirit in which you contribute. Geometry guy 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No barnstar required, Geometry guy, thanks so much for your kind comment! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback}} Beloved Freak 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescaled fair use image not deleted

{{adminhelp}} Hello. This image was reduced in size, but the historical images weren't deleted. I have no qualms with this because backlogs exist, but I was confused in this case since the Category:Rescaled fairuse images shows that "more than 7 days old" is empty. Did I tag the image inappropriately? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try WP:VPT? Leaving up the tag so it can be deleted. —fetch ·comms 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using a null edit like the box suggested, but it didn't help. Substing the template worked, but that's not supposed to be done. Not sure what's wrong. —fetch ·comms 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the image in question, I used {{non-free reduced|~~~~~}}, but I've also substed {{furd}} on other images; there should be no difference, though, correct? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I deleted both the old one and the duplicate copy. I'm not sure if you fixed it before I came? When I looked at the category it indeed was listed under the 7 days or older cat :) James (T C) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, James. Fetchcomms may have fixed the category issue; I certainly didn't do anything. Appreciated! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: To present/onward

Thanks for the note, I'll check in on it! — Huntster (t @ c) 23:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up on Avril Lavigne

I've left some (hopefully) final comments on Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She passed!

This user helped promote Avril Lavigne to good article status.

Excellent work! And a pleasure working with you. I'm glad she passed. Eventually! In recognition of your hard work:

		The Original Barnstar
		To Keraunoscopia, in recognition of your fine efforts to bring Avril Lavigne up to Good Article status and subtle pestering on my talk page to make sure the review was completed! HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Canadian Music Barnstar
		Great job in getting the Avril Lavigne article to GA level and thank you for all that you do for Canadian music related articles !! Moxy (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow you guys, thank you so much, I didn't expect this at all! Immensely appreciated, absolutely wonderful! Thank you!! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you realy did great...and as the Canadian music wikiproject promised ...we will be making a portal for her this week. We would love your input on this ..like what songs, albums, articles 'YOU' wnat in the new portal..ps you have any colors in mind??Moxy (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait to take a look at the portal. I wouldn't have the first idea what to recommend in terms of colors: she uses a lot of blacks, reds, pinks, and her fragrances lean toward the violet part of the spectrum. Let me know when it's up and running and I'll chime in on its talk page! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-->Portal:Avril Lavigne....So what you going to work on next LOL :) Moxy (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I think it looks fantastic. I love the Shania Twain portal too. My other projects are a few rock and metal bands. We shall see! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk comment

If you're saying that Ancestry.com is not reliabled, how is it that they always reference Dictionary of Oxford of English (Irish, etc.) Names? And plus, there are very few other websites to trust concerning surname etmology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I sort of added, it's probably based on a case-by-case scenario. I'm really not familiar with Ancestry.com enough. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan

Hey Keraunoscopia. When I clicked on "Joe Bosso's article" the page came up showing the article had been removed, then my computer started working really hard and then Norton shut down the page and told me a trojan attack had been defended. It could be the site got hacked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frightening. Okay, thank you for letting me know. Mark Goldsmith (editor in chief of MusicRadar) will get in touch with me tomorrow and we'll see what's up with the article. That may be why the article was removed as well, don't know. I've been to the page several times on Safari, and I just tried it on Firefox, but neither browser has warned me of any malicious code (doesn't mean anything though), but we'll see what Mr. Goldsmith says. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Norton for a fuller report which I thought you might be able to use. It says definition version 2010.06.07.034; severity high; component: auto-protect; file name: c:\documents and settings\(my computer's name)\local settings\temp\jar_cache\7073688393128647722.tmp Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to request deletion of .js page?

{{adminhelp}} Hello, I'd like to have this page deleted permanently: User:Keraunoscopia/highlight_my_username_in_history.js. For future reference, how would I request a .js page deleted? Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Presently I don't believe there is any way to have the CSD tagged parsed within a .js page. This method you used here will work fine. Regards. 7 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, 7. Awesome username, btw – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation

Many thanks for your recent paean for my gallery (and beyond)! – Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Keep Holdin' on single cover

I added the category to it because its Avril's song, with her name on it and all. If you wanna remove it, that's OK. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no reason for it to be removed, but would you rather change the name of the category to something less specific? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most categories follow that format, "Category:Images of So-and-So", See what I mean in Category:Images of musicians. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then I'll remove it from the cat. I just didn't want to step on your toes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Have we met? :) Serendi ^pod ous 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newp. I just saw your name somewhere and thought I'd leave a random note on your talk page :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stone Temple Pilots

Hi there, sorry I wasn't around to participate in your discussion on sourcing issues. Hope you managed to get something sorted! --Beloved Freak 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BelovedFreak, my decision happened so quickly, it didn't give much time for people to respond to the discussion. I removed the section in question, then rewrote it completely and I'm actually happier with the end result. But I learned an important lesson on the way: don't trust online sources to "exist" forever. Thanks for getting in touch with me anyway! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images not being deleted

{{adminhelp}} Hello, I've had this issue before. Several of my non-free images are not being deleted after their size has been reduced. Again, I went to the Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old and it is empty. The images that have revisions that need to be deleted are listed:

I am using the {{subst:furd}} template, and in my edit summaries, I just write "furd"... are either of these causing the problem? Should I have a more specific edit summary? It's no problem at all, especially if a bot is looking for something in the summary. Otherwise, I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly, or if this is just a temporary thing. I have more image deletion requests coming up in the next few days; I'll keep an eye on them as well. Thanks so much for your help. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keraunoscopia. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I'm going to delete the old versions for those, using the Housekeeping criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict - so ignore the bits about me leaving stuff not deleted...) Hmm, it is a puzzle. I don't have a definite answer, so I'm leaving the admin help template in place to see if someone else has a more conclusive one. I started by checking Template:Non-free reduced, which does say {{subst:furd}} is the shortcut, so that should be ok. I would be very surprised if edit summaries had anything to do with it, that's not how categories work. I checked an image that got placed correctly in the over 7 days category [2] and the main thing I notice different from most of you edits is the format of the time stamp - on yours it only gives the date, not time as well [3]. There is at least one exception though [4], so don't know if that actually explains it... I'll now go and delete the all except those couple, which I'll leave as examples to allow another admin more knowledgeable about templates and categories to have a look. Peter 13:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done that, but I don't know why they weren't showing on the "more than 7 days" page, as they appeared to be correctly tagged. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys very much, I appreciate it. Peter, you may be on to something. I didn't always used to use the subst. The Hilary Hahn image (the one you pointed out as the exception), I wrote in the edit summary "tag nfr", which means to me that I didn't use {{subst:furd}}, I used {{non-free reduced|~~~~~}}. If the resulting date/time is in a different format, or missing components of the time (I hadn't noticed until now), then maybe the subst template needs to be corrected. I'll mention this discussion at the subst's talk page. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, it just clicked... using the {{non-free reduced}} tag with the tildes still didn't work. Hmm... I'll still mention this on the subst's talk page. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk?

{{helpme}} Is there a page where templates are discussed? I glanced at WP:Template and didn't think the page had enough views. (My question pertains to the {{ear}} template, which didn't seem to include my signature as being the person who tagged the discussion "answered" here: Wikipedia:Help_desk#.22Bump.22). Thanks!! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could start a general discussion of templates at Wikipedia talk:Template messages or Village Pump Technical, however, if you want to discuss or ask about the {{ear}} template specifically it's probably best to do so at it's talk page, Template talk:Ear. As for that specific diff, I'm not sure but i think it might have something to do with the code in your signature.. because when I test it it seems to work fine for me. Try testing it with a different, maybe simpler signature. -- œ ^™ 07:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It seems to show up if you remove the <i> </i> tags from your signature. -- œ ^™ 07:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Temple Pilots (album) is on hold

See the review (here) for concerns. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Just come when you're ready. Tezero (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Good work finding so much on such a recent album. Tezero (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (1997 film)

Hello, Keraunoscopia. Regarding this edit you made, as I stated in my edit summary, "It is a close-up, seeing as it is not the full drawing, which shows her fully nude." The reason I added "close-up" is so that readers who have not seen this film will know that that is not the complete sketch. The complete sketch shows more.

Anyway, I wanted to come talk this over with you before adding "close-up" back. I do not mind you having removed the other stuff from the caption; it was more so personal commentary. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer22, not a problem! My original intent was to remove the dangling modifier—"As one of the more romantic scenes within the film, Cameron drew the portrait himself" (Cameron is one of the more romantic scenes?)—which was confusing. The other edits were just secondary to me, so please, by all means, re-add what is necessary. I wrote "detail?" in my edit summary because I wasn't sure if "close-up" was referring to a detail of the original sketch or if it was a close-up shot (like the film term) of the drawing. Anyway, thanks for getting in touch with me, and apologies for modifying an otherwise fine caption. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. And thank you for explaining. I will add "close-up shot" instead of "close-up." I definitely see how that is clearer (especially as someone largely involved in screenwriting, although we usually use "close up" as a shortcut in the shooting script). Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Works well with the text : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

You should consider applying for reviewer rights (if you dont have it already) - Avril Lavigne's article will be added to the WP:Pending changes trial. See --> Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer to apply ...So you can still edit pages at will!!.....Moxy (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels
	Unregistered or newly registered	Confirmed or autoconfirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor ^★	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes	All users can edit Edits by unregistered or newly registered editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not.						Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi	Cannot edit	Normal editing					Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing				Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template	Cannot edit			Normal editing			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full	Cannot edit				Normal editing		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts.
Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
^★ The table assumes a template editor also has extended confirmed privileges, which is almost always the case in practice.
Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection view talk edit

Thanks Moxy, I'm already set up :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evanescence

Please see my reply at Talk:Evanescence. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry about that, the hidden comment is perfectly placed; I just didn't go into the window. I hate being "yet another one" probably bringing up that similarity. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd be amazed how many people *do* go into the edit window and still remove one or the other. Sorry for being abrupt, my AGF is all but gone when it comes to the Will Hunt/Will Hunt situation. I think they hired "Science" just to make our lives difficult here ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol well it's perfectly understandable, it's just one of those coincidences that'll haunt the article for all time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart

Please don't include information from the United World Chart, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was a chart, I was just using it for worldwide sales, so it never occurred to me to check it against WP:BADCHARTS. Thanks for letting me know. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Temple Pilots

Thanks for your message. No problem organizing the chart table. Regarding what charts to include, I prefer only the main national chart, in this case the Billboard 200. I do agree that the Digital Albums chart is unnecessary, especially since it's charted so well overall; however, you've got it all sourced, so I won't remove it. I wouldn't put it back though, either, if someone does decide to remove it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. What is your opinion on charts being mentioned in the prose, but not listed in the table? For example, if the Digital chart isn't really necessary, I could just move that into the prose section. I did this with the Alternative charts, which I know is a component chart, but which I also recall reading somewhere (talk pages of WP:USCHARTS maybe?) could be mentioned in prose, but shouldn't be used in the table if the album charted on Rock charts. Or should I leave it as-is, and if it's eventually removed, leave it as-is as well? Thanks very much for your input. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart table I think is a great way to summarize various worldwide chart positions from a country's principal and/or official chart provider. When discussing the chart performance in the prose, the information should be coming from a source other than the chart itself, meaning that it's actually written about elsewhere. This gives substance to its chart position beyond just a number, so if it's mentioned in a source (even if it's within Billboard apart from the chart itself) that it's the second best-selling digital album for a week in June then mention it. I'm also not a fan of a prose section for charts that just repeats the chart table: "it reached #2 in Canada, #6 in New Zealand, #21 in Australia, and #35 in Finland, etc." I'm not sure if I'm being of much help here, but I do appreciate you asking my opinion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that all makes perfect sense. I may take some of your suggestions and work them into a few articles, including looking for sources outside of the chart. That's exactly what I wanted to read, thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Recovery21.jpg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added into article for the time being. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Rose

To be honest, I don't know that the size issue is raised anywhere. The 400px number is just the middle ground that most folks feel comfortable with. Let me put it this way...regardless of what kind of non-free image it is, keep image sizes between 300 and 400px, and you should be fine. :) As for Forbidden Rose, no, it was perfectly simple, I just made a complete muck-up of things by not looking at the edit history properly. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend

I was recently at an informal Wiki participants meeting in Toronto and there was alot of talk about articles with listed references like Avril's (it was not mentioned per say). Apparently there might be a big push on to stop this practice. As a recent independent poll has stated that new users find the coding overwhelming (as its a 2 step process to add a ref). I guess they say 2 steps because if you dont edit from the top..you have to edit 2 sections to add reference and this is not user friendly. Y i am telling you this....because i have made copies of Avril's page toady with normal ref format so if the list format is abandoned we can quickly change it up so the GA level will not be affected. I personal like the listing format but had to admit at the meeting that its not the norm and might be over coded for a newcomer - because most newcomers just add <ref> web-page.com </ref> to the end of a sentence. From what i understand they will be pushing this view point soon on the grounds that its not user friendly (To newcomers). They were also saying there tends to be ownership problems when it come to articles with this types of references and new info is simply deleted if the format is not followed. Again just heads-up so if you see a tag saying ..."This references format is up for discussion" you wont be surprised. I personally will vote to keep the listed references format if it goes that far. Moxy (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I don't think they have much of a case. LDR supports regular referencing (<ref>foo</ref>) as well as list-defined, so it works to both editors' advantages. If an editor decides not to use a two-step process, he or she may simply leave the reference within the text. No one's forcing them to make that second edit. Also, newcomers sometimes correctly assign references with a "ref name"... why go through all that trouble of using a shortened ref name for most of the references except for one, when they can do it for all of them. It's not like this is rocket science, and it doesn't take up more than five seconds to add a reference to the References section. As for the "ownership" issues, I could just as easily consider non-LDR articles to be "owned" by non-LDR supporters. In addition, this would be like arguing that the Avril Lavigne article is "owned" by Canadians because it uses Canadian spelling. I find the whole thing to be rather silly, and somewhat in the vein of "nothing else better to do". But thanks for the heads up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% percent....i think the whole argument in null and void...I dont think they will get far (and hope they dont).Moxy (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite tweet

Perhaps we need redirects for other social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, etc? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only added Template:Cite tweet because, had the redirect been there earlier, it would've saved me the slight hassle of doing a prefix search. It was merely to be used as an example for a discussion on the Avril Lavigne talk page. I honestly (forgive me for saying so) can't tell if you're being sarcastic; the creation of the redirect wasn't intended as the promotion of using Twitter as a viable source of information. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm. Cite tweet was on my watchlist, as I had it at TfD a while back and it was moved to User:UtherSRG/Cite tweet. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, okay, my apologies, it was hard to tell.) I saw that the template had been moved, and had I participated in the TfD discussion, I would've requested the template be removed and a redirect placed there instead. If there is a similar history with Template:Cite Facebook and MySpace, etc, then I'd think that redirects would be fine. To me, template redirects show that someone had already gone through that thought-process already and that a more specific template was simply not needed. It's a definitive answer, as opposed to finding the page non-existent or having been deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Taylor

Hi, I was citing a video from Youtube as a reference to a 9 darter hit by Taylor. It is reference number 28 and I never cited a video before and was hoping you would check and see if I am doing it right. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.Kennedy1, the citation itself looks okay to me. I would actually change the medium= parameter from "Motion picture" to "Television production", since the footage was most likely aired on TV, not part of a feature film release. I would also add the time= parameter and include the time on the video when Taylor makes the 9 darter. As for the placement of the citation in the phrase, I believe it to be incorrect. Currently, the phrase reads: In 2004, he repeated the feat in Bolton again live on television in the UK Open against Matt Chapman, making him one of only two players (the other being van Barneveld) in the game's history ever to have achieved the feat more than once on television.^[28] However, nowhere does the video state that Taylor is one of only two players in the game's history to have achieved the feat more than once on television, and I don't recall hearing van Barneveld's name either. This means that the reference should be moved to the end of the first part of the phrase, with a {{cn|date=August 2010}} tagged on the end of the second part of the phrase until a suitable reference can be found. For example: In 2004, he repeated the feat in Bolton again live on television in the UK Open against Matt Chapman,^[28] making him one of only two players (the other being van Barneveld) in the game's history ever to have achieved the feat more than once on television.^{[citation needed]} Hope that helps! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will be able to cite the rest of his 9-darters now. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing, do you think that article is close to GA status, I have put it in PR here if you want to comment Wikipedia:Peer review/Phil Taylor/archive1. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 17:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to review the article at the moment. Obviously, any {{cn}} tags will need to be taken care of, though. Best of luck! I just did a super-quick scan and I'll add that two sections are tagged for expansion, which needs to be resolved, and the word "b******s" should be spelled out entirely, in accordance to WP:NOTCENSORED. Your references look okay in terms of formatting and consistency with dates. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private information

{{adminhelp}} Hello. Can someone permanently delete the above discussion. An email address and private medical information is mentioned. I also have no idea what the topic is about. I don't have a strong memory for past collaborations with users online (I retain memory "space" for more useful things!). Thank you so much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclemens... I happened to log in as you were doing your thing. Please be sure to remove this diff as well, thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I *think* I finally did that right--sorry, never had to do that before. I'll notify oversight, who should clean up any remaining messes. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was actually intrigued by the process a bit. Thanks so much for your help in the matter. He should have contacted an admin, not me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Emily Osment Let's Be Friends single cover.jpg

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article redacted into redirect for the time being. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen trees

Hi Keraunoscopia, just saw your post at WP:RDS, but as you've marked it as resolved thought I'd post here instead. Obviously they are knocked over by wind, but it sounds to me as though the most likely cause would be an ice storm which massively increases the weight of the tree (by coating it in ice) and makes it much more likely to be blown over by the wind as a result. You might want to take a look at this paper as the ice storm article doesn't particularly cover this effect. Smartse (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though that paper was free but it isn't. Try looking at the 1998 section in the examiner article in this search. (Can't link to it as examiner.com is blacklisted). Smartse (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, thank you so much. Your suggestion would require that I actually inquire around regarding the history of ice storms around here, or maybe the combination of heavy snowfall and wind. I hadn't thought of this at all! I suppose, also, that it's entirely possible the trees had not fallen all at once, but have collected as a result of similar storms over time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne articles

Hello there, thanks for leaving me a message. First I'd just like to wonder when on earth was the dates changed, because I recall, not too long ago they were all normal. But anyways, I brought it up on the talk page. How is her website blog not reliable? I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. I put a link to the exact page it was on, not just her main page. And for the with, I'm fine with that. I've just seen with being lowercase in titles. And pretty much with everything else, I didn't think would make such a big deal. Great to see you are an amazing contributor to the article! ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article went under a "revamp" last summer, when several of us expanded it. The dates may have changed around that time, so fairly recently. I mean, not more than a year. Her website blog is still a primary source, and secondary sources are used to establish notability. Having said that, I misconstrued the URL; I thought it went to the main page, and that's my mistake, so I apologize. But in any case, a secondary source is almost always preferred, especially if it can be used in place of a primary source. As for I'm With You, I know, it can be frustrating when it comes to song titles and grammar, and honestly, I don't think there is a straightforward answer sometimes. For the sake of consistency, and to avoid any warring (especially if the song's article were to be moved for the umpteenth time), I figure it's best to stick with a capital W. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 Gauge (album)

Hi. this is just a template. when numbers are exact like (8/10), there is no difference between digits and stars, unless scores like: (8.7/10). many articles for mainstream bands & singers use this template though scores aren't stars. however i don't change your edit because of Template:Rating. sorry, my english isn't good. PAK (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. If a reviewer does not use a star system, then the rating template must not be used. This has been discussed countless times on template and article talk pages. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying/Pasting text into new article

Hi. I copied and pasted the edit-window text of the Goodbye Lullaby section of the Avril Lavigne article into this sandbox to allow users to begin editing the future article. Upon publishing the article, we would go back to the Goodbye Lullaby section of the AL article and remove unnecessary and over-detailed information—and I assumed we would simply put a tag in the talk page explaining that some of the text in the article had been moved to another article. In other words, this would eventually become a cut-and-paste.

But suddenly I realized that this may have been the wrong thing to do. What about the edit history made to the Goodbye Lullaby section, these were obviously not going to be moved to the sandbox. Should I have done this differently? I was looking at WP:HISTMERGE and realized that I think I have messed up royally. Is there any way to fix this? Or because the edits are so few on the sandbox, with everyone's consent, would we simply be able to start from scratch? Thank you so much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add {{db-histmerge|NAME OF PAGE THE ARTICLE WAS CUT FROM}} and explain what I said above? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need, move the sandbox to mainspace when it's done but make a note in the move or edit log that it incorporates text from the parent article. This is fine for a split-out. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Quantum Boogaloo

Thank you! I did take some time making so those. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.}

2010

2011→