User talk:Mattjeast

Bobby Bones Show

Hi, in your last edit you deleted my comment about page protection. This is there for visibility; please take case when editing in future. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm completely new to actually EDITING Wikipedia. The morning show that this is about came on the air this morning saying they were finally going to put together a Wikipedia page and wanted listener contributions. That's why there was a huge influx of people trying to edit the page simultaneously. Anyways, let me know if I can help. I've been a listener for awhile, and I think I have a decent amount of knowledge on the subject (as much as a fanboy can have, at least).Mattjeast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You will find some useful information about editing here. However, anyone editing the article (given that it's been advertised on the radio) should be aware of basic policies about what can go into the article. In particular, those running the show should not be editing it themselves. Best of luck. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1]. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t18:31z

Bobby Bones Show part deux

The <p> and <br> tags are unnecessary and do not ever need to be added to an article. I keep removing them. Is there a reason for them to be there? -Mike Payne (T • C) 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I thought it was like HTML and they needed to be added. Still working on the "editing" thing. I'll keep that in mind, thanks.Mattjeast (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any time when you need additional spacing that would otherwise be provided by a BR or P tag, you just need to add additional line breaks when editing,

Like this.

Or this. -Mike Payne (T • C) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using references multiple times

Check out this diff for how you use the same reference multiple times. This prevents the same URL from appearing over and over again in the references section. You haveto name it the first time and then you just need to refer to the name later to use the same reference. -Mike Payne (T • C) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit war over this and you keep insisting on reverting my changes which are fixing the article, and I'm getting tired of manually going over the article and redoing them. If you keep reverting my changes, I'm going to keep reverting yours, and I guarantee that one of us will get blocked for violating the 3RR. -Mike Payne (T • C) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I did a bunch of work linking the random Wikipedia articles when relevent, and you must've been editing simultaneously. I didn't want to lose all of the changes I made, so I checked mine against yours, and I didn't see any changes to the "Cast" section. So, I copied and pasted what I did over the cast section that you had apparently edited. I apologize, I'm not trying to start an "edit war." I'm just trying to post more accurate information. You can look at my account -- I'm new to this. I know for a fact that I will know exponentially more about this topic because my guess is that you are not an Austin resident and don't listen to this show on a daily basis. I've noticed that your changes are all for the purpose of making the article prettier and not actual content changes. I'm not trying to step on any toes, I'm just trying to make sure what is on the page is correct and not random spam from all of the anonymous posters that had this article locked in the first place. If you would like to be more constructive, let me know if you can figure out how to keep the image that WAS at the top of the page active instead of a copyright issue... I don't know how to make that work.Mattjeast (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to check the IPs. I looked at the history, and I'm not the one that deleted any of the work from earlier, apparently.Mattjeast (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the edit history, that's how I determined that it WAS you that undid my changes. Regardless, I'll write it off to you being new. The image at the top of the page needs to be something not copyrighted, because those objects can't appear on wikipedia. The image(the cartoon image with the blue background) is copyrighted and not released to the public domain, and that's why it can't be used. You're not likely going to find one in the public domain. The most likely photo that would qualify would be if you found Bobby Bones on the street, took his picture, and then released it into the public domain(doesn't require any work, just you be willing to say you don't care how the image is used and you don't want profit from it by like selling it to a magazine).

And no, I'm not an Austin resident. I found out about the article patrolling the recent changes list, and that's what I'm interested in due to what appears to be trolling generated by them encouraging it on the show. The article, not the show. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, does a picture taken off of their MySpace page constitute an appropriate picture for the site? These are non-professional pictures snapped out in public.Mattjeast (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it's expressly released into the public domain by the creator of the image, otherwise it's implicitly copyrighted. You can't just take a picture off someone's myspace and put it on wikipedia. -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to say though. Aren't those pictures public domain anyways because they've posted them to their MySpace profile for the viewing public (if the profile is public instead of private and anyone could click on the pictures anyways, I mean)? I'm not trying to make this into a big ordeal, I'm just trying to get past going out and snapping a picture myself.Mattjeast (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. The photographer of the pictures holds the copyright, and he can choose to display them any way he wishes, on his web site, on myspace, wherever. The owner of the copyright controls it and put it on his myspace, he can take it down if he wants. If someone else steals the picture he probably can't do anything about it, so it means the picture is not secure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a copyright and is released into the public domain. If you or I stole it, nobody would care, but wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia organization, a large target enough to sue and actually get more money in damages than it would cost in legal fees. -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published_works for more info about that. -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For things needing a reference you don't have yet, you use {{fact|date=April 2008}} where the year and month are replaced with the year and month that tag is being added. -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification

I have added this tag to Bobby Bones Show in a few instances where link provided as a source could not be used to directly support the information as it is presented in the article. Since the Wikipedia policy WP:PROVEIT allows the removal of any material that is not verifiable, I wanted to give you a chance to correct this. The material might have been at that location at one point in time, so may be possible to locate the sources again using the suggestions found at WP:DEADREF.

October 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bobby Bones Show, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I responded to the concerns you posted at User talk:206.127.8.132. When you reverted the improperly sourced information about the rumor, why did you also remove the reliably sourced content about Google trends? EagleAg04 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources for the statements in the article have now been added. The first source is from The Globe and Mail, which is a highly reliable source since it is considered the newspaper of record in Canada. The second source is a recording of the Bobby Bones Show itself. Please do not remove this sourced content again without a valid explanation. Thanks. EagleAg04 (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]