This is an archive of past discussions about User:Spellcast. 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.
I'm Riana, and I noticed that you've been here for a while, but no-one's welcomed you yet (sorry!), so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,914,693 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible. Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-
You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Hi! I've noticed your name on some hip-hop articles I've been editing so I thought I'd ask your opinion on something. Do you think the G-Unit radio series mixtapes found at the G-Unit discography page deserve articles of their own? Or should they simply be kept in the discography page without expansion? Spellcast17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd going to say that they are notable and deserve their own articles, mainly for this reason (as per WP:Notability (music)):
Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
According to this, there's no reason why the articles shouldn't be created (or kept for that matter). However I do think that the articles should be expanded (meaning more detailed information; preferably information that explains why a specific album is significant compared to the other two dozen in the series). And I also think they need to be formatted properly (meaning more categories, placing track titles in quotes, etc.). If the articles are improved, their notability wont be questioned so often.--NPswimdude50021:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know before I did it, that I'm removing the vandalism warning that you left on this user's page (regarding recent edits to Before I Self Destruct) and replacing it with a more serious warning. This user has made numerous edits vandalizing wikipedia and has received last warnings in the past. It is my belief that a more severe warning is justified.--NPswimdude50004:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops! My bad, I just realized that you left a warning regarding a different article. Your warning stays and I'll add my own. Sorry for the inconvenience!--NPswimdude50004:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Images
Hi Spellcast, thanks for the heads up. I think possibly unfree images is the best place for images like that, but then I'll be the first to admit that I'm not very experienced with images or image policy. There are some administrators who are very good with images; 2 I can think of off the top of my head are Howcheng and Sherool. It may be worth asking them. Thanks, and keep up the good work! – Rianaঋ01:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Newbie testing and vandalism cleanup
I just wanted to leave a note of appreciation for all of the cleanup of vandalism and newbie testing that you're doing. Jkelly17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with A Man In Black on this one. The amount of information on the albums isn't enough to justify using album covers for it; WP:MUSTARD also recommends against using them. As far as the Rihanna picture, I reuploaded but luckily remembered to check the logs. I think the image may have actually been deleted for another reason; it was noted as a copyvio from Getty Images. That's not where I got the image, but I'm guessing the Flickr user might have gotten the picture from Getty Images, so I asked the Commons admin who deleted it. ShadowHalo19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The {{unreferenced}} template always used to be placed at the end of an article in a "sources" section. For some reason controversy has arisen, but (as the template page explains), the two options don't include the top of the article:
"There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page."
Yes, I was wrong about the wikilink (odd; I'd thought that U.S. place-name articles had been made consistent). About the template placement, though, I don't think that it is a mater of personal choice; if didfferent people place them differently, aside from the messiness it can cause confusion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Karn'age, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
FYI you edited the article Karn'age on 22:52, 26 March 2007 and again on 22:53, 26 March 2007, according to the page's history. It appears that your edits were solely to add an {{Unreferenced}} tag to the article. The article has since been deleted as a biography of a non-notable person. I added the above msg to your talk page because you appeared more than once in the list of editors of the article, and that is standrd practice when considering speedy deletion of an article. I failed to check more deeply into exactly what your edits were until i got your msg on my talk page today.I hope that explains the matter. DES(talk)20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:A_Night_in_Terror_Tower.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A_Night_in_Terror_Tower.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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. ↔NMajdan•talk21:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about Boltonboi69(talk·contribs·block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs)
Confusion
regarding what you told me about not writing my own views in the articles, that was an innocent mistake, i wanted to write it in the edit summary but accidently wrote it in the article section i was editting. i have no intentions to vanadalise. and if you saw i had already reverted my own edits of that mistake, so, i dont see what you are complaining to me, as i had already fixed my own mistakes. anyways, i understand, and i wasnt trying to vanadlise either. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
It wasn't intentionally. I had the wrong person (I copied and pasted hastily)! I'm sorry if I removed content by accident. I'm trying to do the right thing! When you get the chance, can you please remove the warning? Thanks! --24.136.230.3816:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Before I Self Destruct deleted
Just wanted to know why you deleted Before I Self Destruct off the 50 Cent discography. It is confirmed with release date and further information. Let me know, thanks! -egeiz 2:09 AM, April 5, 2007 (EST)
Before I Self Destruct
Yes, this is confirmed. -egeiz 2:19 PM, April 5, 2007 (EST)
Hi, I noticed you have given this warning to users, anonymous and registered, who have only vandalized 1 time, even if the vandalism was minor. My interpretation of this warning is for severe, malicious vandalism. If something is innocuous, but inappropriate, like "cheese pie", consider giving {{uw-vandalism2}} and taking it from there. Part of my reasoning applies to not wanting to bite newbies who may just be fooling around and will stop at a stern but not imminent block warning. LeeboT/C20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the percentage of FA vandal IPs will come back, but I don't think giving them a "this is your only warning" is necessarily the way to handle them all. Sure, it makes reporting them to AIV easier, because if they vandalize again they've gone past their final warning, but I think it goes against the spirit of WP:WARN that WikiProject User warnings was trying to achieve. Again, it's a personal opinion. LeeboT/C22:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning vandals but not reverting their vandalism.
I noticed you recently warned 76.104.53.49 for vandalism on Scooby-Doo. While he did vandalize, I don't think you reverted the vandalism. Each of my reverts to the vandalism happened one minute after your warnings. Funpika21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Your message
It came up a while ago with regard to a number of pop-singers; the consensus was that awards are notable, but nominations aren't (along with anything but first places). It's some months ago, so it'll take me a while to find it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that a musician's awards should be contained in separate article if it becomes too long. It's important to keep these pages watchlisted since they can often be fodder for fancruft. For example, List of awards and achievements for Madonna has "For its 20th Anniversary, MTV ran a 100 Best Videos Poll..." Stuff like this generally needs to be kept out of articles. ShadowHalo02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Another message
Hey Spellcast,
You left a comment on the talk page for a Harvard IP address (140.247.142.167) regarding "content removal" from the featured Scooby-Doo article on April 12th. Actually, I was removing vandalism, not content, at the same time as someone else -- Wikipedia alerted me that there was an "edit conflict" and I was unsure how to proceed from there, so I just exited and, upon returning, saw that another user had made the same change. I'm pretty sure that the edit was picked up by a bot scanning for changes made from school IP addresses, and I wouldn't want the bot's mistake to affect other users here at Harvard. Just figured I'd bring it to your attention, and I'm hoping that you'll remove the misplaced vandal warning. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.142.167 (talk • contribs)
Huh?
Re: "Klp88 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Username is a clear violation of the username policy" at WP:AIV — hardly "clear" at all. You have two requests for clarification on that one. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]‹(-¿-)›08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Might be worth taking it to RFCN (88 could just be a reference to his birth year *shrug*). By the way, it's nice to see that a user I've welcomed has become so active :) – Rianaऋ09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I just thought the way the death was explained, like how the windows were closed, had no real significance to his life, but i dont listen to his songs that much. Anyways, no problem, you have alot more experiance then me in this area. Happy editing Warrush03:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) edit- Why not change it to something less graphic, like "her death had a profound significance to 50 cents musical development" instead of just describing her gruesome murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrush (talk • contribs)
50 Cent/George Bush section
What is your definition of a "concensus"??? Most of the people who've commented so far hold my position---that if it's factually true (it is) and it's relevant (it certainly is) then it should be added to his article. Months ago, we came to the same concensus on it and nobody had a problem with it. It was pretty much the same entry, word for word. There's already a solid precedent for a "Political views" section in articles of entertainers and/or non-politicians. I have also tried to stay as NPOV as humanly possible. The entry is factual and fair and it meets all Wikipedia standards. Rambone(Talk)09:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have used the wrong template here, If your going to give a final warning straight away, use {{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article}}
I think you may have gone a little hard on them too, even if they are blatantly vandalising, they may be new and just seeing what they can do. Remember to assume good faith.
Thanks, Omega ArchdoomTalk02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all refs should have retrieval dates, at least when you go for FAC. Especially recently; every FA that I looked at that passed this year had them. Also I added the exact number as this seems to indicate you should, I think it applies to any unit of measurement. Anyways, the article is pretty close to GA but the Controversy section needs more sources. TayquanhollaMy work15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to ask an admin just go here all ten of the last 10 featured articles have retrieval dates in their refs, see "New Featured Content"-Articles. TayquanhollaMy work16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the successful thing I think we're allowed to use some adjectives. Also I don't think that statement is likely to fit the criteria of a disputed statement, all we're saying is they sold a lot of albums, which they did. Now if we said they were revolutionary or visionary that might need a source. We should assume some people who read the article don't know anything the subject so short descritptions like that are helpful. That way they don't have to leave the article to understand that the label has been very successful. It seems like a pretty tame adjective to me overall though. All this aside, the article's improved like a 1,000% in the last couple of months, I think it would pass GA now. TayquanhollaMy work16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a frequently expressed mistake, that whatever is part of a featured article is in accordance with the MoS, but I'd not come across the idea that whatever is in featured articles is compulsory... In this case, although some (but not all) of the examples given in Wikipedia:Citing sources include retrieval dates, it's not mentioned anywhere as a requirement or even as recommendation, so far as I can tell. There are so many different pages of guidance and policy, though, that it's always possible to miss one. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Spellcast - I'm not sure, really, having never one any FA-writing or anything like that, but I assume that it is necessary for the sake of completeness. I'm probably not the best person to ask about this ;) Regards, – Riana⁂00:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
hey
Hey spellcast I see you on the Lupe Fiasco article a lot. Well, i wanted to make that article more up to Wiki standards and was wondering, what should I do to make it better?
Alright Spellcast, I'll tell you why I keep putting the Album Covers back on this page. It's where they belong. These album covers have been on Ice Cube's page for years and now all of a sudden, they're being takin off the page? Yeah, I know they are copyrighted, but most of the images on wikipedia are. Unless Wikipedia gets into serious trouble for those album covers, I suggest we keep them on the pages. I hope U understand. Payne2thamax
Oops, my bad. I thought we could start using the citation template, but I didn't know that the manual way of citation is also an acceptable form. My apologies. Anyway, it is nice to see the article getting your attention. It looks like you've done an excellent job in improving it. I'll try improving it as much as I can so it can get GA status. BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Having been carefully examined in FAC, this article mostly follows the MOS. The MOS does not say not to link years, and there is some controversy on this matter. Centuries and decades are usually linked. nadav (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I reverted it is because MoS:L says "Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century make the article overlinked." If I am wrong, please correct me. Anyway, the article has gone through a FAC, so I won't revert it if you decide to link it again. It was originally added by Editore99, so perhaps you can bring it up with him if you want. Spellcast12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to only revert vandalism today to avoid 3RR. This will be discussed on the talk page and resolved soon enough, since it is not urgent. Thanks, nadav (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Image:I tried.jpg is fine. I generally try to upload images at around 300px wide since user preferences can default the resolution up to 300px wide. From what I can tell, anything under 400x400 is considered low enough resolution, and reducing those pictures will likely create more compression artifacts without doing much to change the size. From what I've seen, 500x500 or more is generally considered too large. Of course, there are always exceptions. I can't remember which film, but there was one screenshot that was illustrating a camera technique of having everything in focus; an image like that needed to be high resolution to illustrate that. ShadowHalo09:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Football 7 started out making mistakes with formatting, but seemed to respond well to explanations. I'm not sure how he's been holding up, as I've been editing sporadically (pressure of work). (I removed a bit of childish abuse from this page, by the way, and warned the anon responsible; I hope that that's OK with you. It's in the History if you really want to read it...) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The message is too vague to determine the appropriate license. What I would recommend is asking "Is it alright if I upload it under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/)?" Assuming the photographer says yes, upload the image to Commons with a message that you're doing the permission through OTRS. Copy all of your messages to him/her and his/her responses into an email and send it to permission-en@wikimedia.org (be sure to include a link to where you uploaded it). ShadowHalo06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Game (rapper), but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! yuckfoo03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ScrewedDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Here's some text to dump in there to stop the deletion. You're the uploader. If you don't do it in a couple of days, I will, but I'm not sure it will stick. --Lexein18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a low-resolution image of the DVD cover of the movie "Screwed".
The source is a personally owned copy of the DVD.
The portion used is of necessity, the entire DVD cover, to show the characters and title in context.
This is a low resolution image which can't reasonably be used to make a copy of the DVD cover.
The purpose is representative only - does not reduce the copyright holder's rights to make or sell this DVD in any way.
This image itself is free, released under GFDL, and could only be replaced by another, similar, low-resolution image of the DVD cover, or a low-resolution image of the movie poster.
It seems fine that way. The purpose of the lead sentence is to identify the subject of the article, so "Emmy-winning American screenwriter, producer and playwright" would be bad since the article isn't about his Emmys. The rest of the lead should summarize the article and assert the subject's notability (I add the last part since articles may say, for example, "Madonna has sold 200 million albums worldwide" without including it in the main article). In this case, mentioning notable awards that he has received seems appropriate. ShadowHalo19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
A translation of WP:ERP to Norwegian could be useful, in general. But in this case I don't think it's needed. The copyright holder of the image in question is a 32 year old Norwegian journalist, and I can assure you that he speaks and understand English very well. Normally you can expect any Norwegian (or Scandinavian, for that matter) above the age of 15 to have a good grasp of the English language, and a Journalist at 32 most definitely can read and understand any English text you send him. That's the good news.
The bad News is that on his home page on http://urke.com/eirik/ he states (in Norwegian) that "Most of my images can be purchased for editorial or private use". So he doesn't seem like a guy who wants to give his work away for free easily by releasing it with the GFDL. But You never know, he might make an exception for some images. So you should ask. But I'd recommend asking about him releasing it under the creative commons license, with attribution. He might be more likely to accept that, as it will have his name below the image, and he might consider it good to show off some of his work to the public that way.
I don't know the guy, and he might of course even accept the GFDL, so you could use any of the examples given on WP:ERP, and see what his response is.
But you can safely do it in English. He'll understand it.
Why are you welcoming me to Wikipedia when I have been here for almost a year now. And what edit are you talking about that I made to 50 Cent, that needs sources.--Yankees1020:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
Thank you for making a report about 75.36.200.7(talk·contribs·block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. TigerShark04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Be Careful What You Wish For....jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Be Careful What You Wish For....jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Spellcast. Thanks for the heads-up - wasn't aware of the sockpuppet situation. I will extend the block to indef. Thanks again. ck lostsword • T • C 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject:G-Unit
Hi, There is a proposed WikiProject for G-Unit.
It would help organize all pages in the G-Unit family and would also help editors to contribute co-operativly
Please add your name to the list if you are interested.
Cam'ron - Now people do not know what dates he was on that record label.
Cam'ron
This isn't vandalism, it's just telling people what dates Cam'ron was on different labels. How you've changed it now means that he's at all those labels currently, which is false, and your now vandalising.
Excuse me, but how is mentioning her Grammy wins in the opening sentence POV?? People are routinely referred to as "Grammy-winning" and "Oscar-winning" by means of introduction. Tabercil22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sheet music
It depends on the article. I have the full sheet music for some of the songs, such as Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song). For others, I don't have the full sheet music but have added what information I could based off of the previews on sheet music sites. ShadowHalo23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't find any sheet music for it, and I doubt it exists. Rap songs don't generally have sheet music since they're not really sung. For example, Eve's rap in "Rich Girl" doesn't have the pitch indicated at all. I'll see if there's some way to source the structure; I wish there were a featured rap song to use as a model. Either way, if you're planning on nominating it at WP:GAN, I would just expand the lead and it should be listed. ShadowHalo23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Jennifer Lopez moved a citation for parenthetical content outside parenthesis. If there were no parenthesis and just a comma, your move would be fine, but I think the ref mark for parenthetical content should be inside the parenthesis.[1]Gimmetrow03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be inside the parenthesis, but I'm mostly trying to convey that changing (text[1]) to (text)[1] or vice-versa is not done "per WP:FN", which was written to avoid all mention of parenthesis. There were some failed attempts to have WP:FN explain why there was no guidance on this point, but simply saying nothing came out as the most satisfactory solution. I'll put it in your style whenever I do another edit on the article. Gimmetrow03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Incubus edit
I was a bit baffled that you removed my information about Opprobrium from the disambiguation page for "Incubus"...
It is true that there is no article for Incubus (death metal band), but there is one for Opprobrium, their new name. This reference is still relevant if users are searching for the (old) band Incubus. So I restored said part as follows:
"Incubus, an American death metal band from Louisiana, which later changed their name to Opprobrium, in order to avoid confusion with newly emerging alternative rock band Incubus (above)."
Howdy... just giving a heads-up that I think we got some relief from the rash of sales inflations on discog pages, thanks to this incident report. If you notice yet another new account making the same types of edits in the future please be sure to report the vandalism so that the articles don't have to be reverted a billion more times. See ya around! - eo17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Arggh, figures. Well, when you see that numbers are inflated by this user again, please make sure appropriate warnings are placed on his talk page. The more warning documentation there is, the more justification there is for blocking. I'll stick one there today for the edits from yesterday, since no one has done it. - eo19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that you removed the awards from the lead section of the Killer's article citing the policy "NPOV." I've seen another editor do that in another article as well. I saw nothing in the policy that said that awards can't be mentioned in the lead section. Additionally, mentioning that someone has recieved an award is far from bias - it is the truth, and obviously substantiated. On the other hand, saying band is "fantastic" or "popular" would be bias. I was curious to know what your rationale was.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs)17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I just now read the article. It is referenced to on the talk page of the Christina article. It has the typically exhasperating misrepresentations of articles written by an outsider, but, to be fair, it isn't bad.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs)18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Wow, thank you, I had no idea the article was viewed so much. I'm just trying to make sure no one adds any crap to it since it is among the top 3 (along with King Mathers and Detox (I am also watching Detox, but I don't think I have enough energy to watch Eminem's album too, I would need at least another user to help, since Eminem has a lot of groupie fans.) most anticipated hip hop albums (at the moment). --- Realest4Life13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
pharrell + list of neptunes awards
hello, i am the guy who wrote most of the pharrell/neptunes article(s) to the point at which you picked them up (my god they were bad before).. its good to see someone else has finally picked them up again.. anyway i notice u've made a new article List of The Neptunes awards.. i'd just like u to note when an award is for pharrell (or chad?) and when it is for the duo; the distinction is often ignored (being as pharrell tends to be the only one in the public eye far more). for example at the start (2001 awards) 'Songwriter of the Year' is an award for pharrell, as he pretty much does all the songwriting, whereas producer applies to the duo.
with regards to the pharrell article, the one thing in the biography which i never got round to adding was the information on the group he, chad and timbaland formed for a short period, 'Surrounded By Idiots'. Also (maybe you have been doing so but) if you could update The Neptunes article when there is relevant information you gather too would be very useful ~ Bungalowbill15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I award you with
The R&B and Soul Music Award
I, Eduemoni, award the R&B and Soul Music Award to Spellcast for his exceptional editions throughout wikipedia. Specially on R&B and Soul articles. Thanks, Wikipedia really needs users like you!
Why did you revert my edits? The photo I put was the full size one, not the one you reverted to. Also, the one of him in February 2006 will get removed by vandals because it is on the left side. So my edits improved the article. Tiger white23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's on the left, it does not mean it will get removed by vandals. I have no idea where that came from. When using multiple images, they should be staggered left and right. WP:MOS says "Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned". Spellcast09:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my edits. Now that I've reviewed your edits more closely, I discover that you did nothing wrong. Somehow, it showed up differently the fist time I reviewed them. Anyway, I'll revert my edits back to your version. Again, my apologies. Orane(talk)05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I think it will pass fine. Like you said I've been spending less time here but. I think you've got it pretty well covered. TayquanhollaMy work16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about Alexam108(talk·contribs·block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. In this case the editors final warnings was given over a month ago. Regards Khukri12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you're concern about the titanic article; however my edits were intentional, as it removed irrelevant content as mentioned in the featured article review. For example, how is the renaming of the Gigantic a consequence of the disaster; also it relies heavily on speculation, so i was merely condensing the article, given that it is far to long as it is --Hadseys20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose you could re instate my edits could you; my account is new and im not clear on how to perform such an action --Hadseys20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. No, I don't see anything. It looks good, I'd say go for it. You've been keeping a good eye on it and it looks great. TayquanhollaMy work17:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
What he means is those mixtapes were not released by 50 Cent himself, they are not official likes say 50 Cent Is the Future, they are just some mixtapes made by random DJs. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of mixtapes like these, for example, see DatPiff.com There was a similar issue with some Eminem bootlegs a while ago. --- Realest4Life17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah all of them were deleted, they were like Straight from the Lab, Don't Call Me Marshall, and all that. By the way, thanks for reverting while I was away. It's funny because, every edit he makes, I report, and so it all goes against him in the end. I won't regret it though. I've had enough of his bitching and insults. --- Realest4Life23:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Most likely (not sure) not created by him, go to this website, go to artists, and search 50 Cent, you will find dozens of other mixtapes like these, not by him. I am saying this because that website has mixtapes uploaded by users, and a lot of the time, those mixtapes are not official, they are just some compilations maybe put together by some fans. I am not going to get into an argument to delete them, they might be real, the main reason the user above messaged you was because I told him not to create an article FOR EVERY SINGLE MIXTAPE FROM THERE, as he created two mixtapes with only sources being from DatPiff within 30 minutes. That's why he is a bit confused. Peace. --- Realest4Life00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I need your help again, as Lcnhop seems to be having problems with the current formatting, and keeps reverting to a previous version. Can you please tell me where it says you have to format this way? Is it in MoS? If so, which section is it under? --- Realest4Life00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand, however, the main problems he seems to be having is with the discography formatting, the way you formatted them, he wants it to be like it was before. I have given him three warnings, next one, I will report him at WP:ANI or whatever it is, that one for incidents, and tell them he is formatting incorrectly. But I need to have a link to show them the rules for the discography formatting. --- Realest4Life00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. I actually knew this guy was around here, and didn't really feel like starting an edit-war with this guy again (we've had one before over something similar, again at Immortal Technique, which led to the article being semi-protected for a month or so), but today I just kind of felt like formatting that article. I actually knew this would lead to his block, that's why I was ready to report him immediately after I made the changes. --- Realest4Life02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the part about [[50 Cent]'s views on George W.Bush slightly more neutral. Surely this is ok to have in the article, It has a reliable reference? Thanks--The-G-Unit-Boss20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I Think the "BET image" should be used becuse it's a more recent image of him and of you look at the "BET image" and the 50 cent retouched.png image , he looks a bit different in the "BET Image".--Shadyaftrmathgunit22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
New 50 imaage
I uploaded an image of 50 cent in home of the brave in his article, can you check if the image is ok, it shoudl as i got the idea from the Angelina Jolie article and it hasnt been removed there.--Shadyaftrmathgunit12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
i reduced the size for the piggy bank screenshot, would it be ok to add it back, was that the image you were refering to as "screenshot res is way too high".--Shadyaftrmathgunit21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me format the La Coka Nostra article? I usually edit album/single article, so I don't really know how I should format it. Especially the discography, I would really appreciate it if you could fix that mess. Thank you. --- Realest4Life21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
They are not albums by that group, those are just songs that appeared on those mixtapes. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, it's hard to do anything with so little information. I don't know what else I should do. --- Realest4Life02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That certainly was a problem one! The answer there is, none of the nonfree images are needed or justified there. Album covers may not be used outside of album articles, and there are plenty of free-use images in that article anyway, so no need whatsoever for any nonfree ones. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
50 Cent
Hi, Sorry, I realise what went wrong now. I was editing it in a copy that I had pasted into MS Word, when I pasted it in it must have been right after those previous edits.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake --The-G-Unit-Boss10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for letting me know. I didnt know it was described in that Wikipedia page. I never knew that you edited those types of articles... --The-G-Unit-Boss16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is out of order, but there's a somewhat contentions AfD (here) that has received little outside attention. Since the AfD was initiated, a number of single purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets) have started editing (and discussing on the talk page) the article; not !voting, fortunately. In any case, I wanted to see if some AfD regulars could stop by and weigh in. I'm not looking to sway !votes here—I haven't targeted deletionists; I'm asking editors that seem to !vote a lot on music-related AfDs. No reply is necessary but your opinion is valued. Pr 2.013:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
China Bankruptcy
The information on the China bankruptcy page was merge to another page. Hence, it could be deleted. Mbisanz16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. From what I've seen, debut album and sophomore album are common terms to use (and that's why sophomore slump is applied to albums). I'm not sure if it's U.S.-centric though, mainly because I don't know how much or how little it's used in the UK and how well understood it would be for a British reader. The only one I'm sure about would be that junior album is confusing and not widely used, so we probably shouldn't use it in Wikipedia. 17Drew17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! It might sound funny, but for an ordinary person like me, sophomore album meant an album which is less successful that it's predecessor. Like "The Sweet Escape is sophomore album of Gwen Stefani" for me meant "The Sweet Escape had lower sales than Love.Angel.Music.Baby, so it's a sophomore album." Thanks! I get to learn something everyday from Wikipedia. But yes, sophomore is a rare word! Luxurious.gaurav07:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh Yes! Thanks for being understanding. Even the page for Sophomore talks something about pupils. It's a confusing word. Well, Wikipedia should be an "easy to understand site" as most of the people who visit Wikipedia are'nt that fluent with english (especially Asia, with Japan and China being very loyal to their languages). Wikipedia should be global friendly. I support the removal of the word "Sophomore" but there are many words which i understand but others don't. So maybe i won't support their removal. Luxurious.gaurav15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
For all you're work to get the 50 Cent article to GA status --21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Shadyaftrmathgunit
"To-do list"
I want to add a to-do list at the talk page of Curtis (50 Cent album) just like the one you have at the 50 Cent talk page. I want it to say to make sure all new information being added is referenced and to make sure references are wikified. How do I do that? --- Realest4Life23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you tell me if the to-do list is any good or if I should change the wording or if another field should also be included in the to-do list? --- Realest4Life03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I suggest you should archive your talk page. It's getting pretty long...
CSD Nom of Foreign Language Article
Hello. Please be advised, I removed your CSD tag from the article about a university, written in Afrikaans. While I probably wouldn't have known it myself if I didn't do this so often, merely being in a foreign language isn't grounds for a CSD, especially considering that the article's about a large educational institution (as opposed to say, a non-notable business). Not trying to bust yer chops, just letting you know (in case you check back and see the CSD is gone). Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You are, indeed, fast, and have reverted vandalism on several articles before I get there. But can I ask you to give me a little time to leave a message on someone's talk page after I've reverted them before you do it yourself? It happened once yesterday, and just happened with User:66.66.134.164 on Limp Bizkit today. It took me about 10 seconds to look at the history and verify I'd reverted correctly, and by the time I went to their user talk page, you'd already been there. Even worse is when I'm in the middle of adding a message and get edit conflicted on the save because someone has jumped in ahead (although this hasn't happened with you).
Sometimes I want to leave a specific message, not just a template. In other cases, I'm just leaving a template. But if you're using automated tools and I'm doing it old school, I need more than a 10 seconds head start even for a template. If I can ask you to verify that you were, indeed, the person who reverted them before leaving a message, I'd appreciate it.
Hm, thanks for the heads up. Apologies if I prevented you from sending a message. I'll keep an eye out for your name next time. And you're doing this old school? I think twinkle will make your job a lot easier ;) Spellcast19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey again, didn't mean for you to look out for me in particular; just to check that you're warning someone you actually reverted; I'm assuming this might be happening because Twinkle doesn't tell you if someone made the same reversion you were trying to make, or it does both things at once, or something? Anyway, no big deal, just makes me a little cranky sometimes.
Yeah, I've thought about trying a scipt of some kind again, but (a) for some reason, in the past I've had a bad problem with javscripts freezing up my IE browser (yes, I know, I should upgrade that too) and (b) I'm not allowed to download any additional software on this computer, so for example vandalproof is out.
Plus, sometimes old school suits my style more. I can poke along, and look for cases of more subtle vandalism, figure out whether that's what it is or not, stick around to maybe make improvements to the article, sometimes try (so far 98% unsuccesfully) to convince a vandal to change their ways with a kinder word than the templates, etc. etc. Poking along suits me fine.
Actually, twinkle does tell you if you've made the same reversion someone else has made. So let's say your reverting to a good version but someone else has already done it, there will be a message on your screen saying that your revert was aborted. Twinkle is more compatible with Firefox (I can't stand IE), so if you ever try out this script, it's highly recommend you try Firefox. I use to revert vandalism old school as well, but this script is so helpful that I don't think I'll ever do it the old way. Anyway, the bottom line is that you should do what suits you best, but if you're here to vandal fight, I think you should try this out for a "test drive" with Firefox. And if you don't like it, you can always go back to your way. Spellcast19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I had just returned to add the redirect to that article, and you'd already done it. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecchione (talk • contribs)
Curtis (50 Cent album)
All right, since I'm using Internet Explorer, I can't see any difference between {{reflist|2}} and <references/>, but User:The-G-Unit-Boss changed it from the first one to the second one for the Curtis (50 Cent album) article. Since I can't really say which one is better, I'll leave it to you. Should I change it back (and why?), or should I leave it the way it is now (and why?)? --- Realest4Life21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm only asking because I remember you switched it from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}} in the first place, and now User:The-G-Unit-Boss changed it to <references/>. Should I leave the way it is now or should I revert? --- Realest4Life21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, you don't need to use that "BannerShell" thing or whatever you call it unless the article is part of three or more WikiProjects, am I correct? --- Realest4Life21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I am talking about. I noticed the difference, the current version has the font larger, and I understand that you only notice the difference for {{reflist|2}} if you use Firefox. To be honest though, I don't even care, I just want to know which one is appropriate. Since you said all of them are good, then I will leave it the way it is until the article gets up to 40-50 references then I will use {{reflist|2}}. Now, am I right about that banner thing? --- Realest4Life21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Arvish, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Arvish fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
Useless talk page from a deleted article
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Arvish, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 219:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Christina Aguilera discography
Excuse me, but I didn't add anything to that person's page that you mentioned. I suggest you check your facts properly in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan jones244 (talk • contribs)
It's fine, I just got a little confused as I'd never heard of the page! I may try and find some more up to date figures. Could you please tell me why the recording dates on 'Back to Basics' keep getting changed, because I have a cited a very reliable source for the Jan-April 2006 dates. There is no way she was recording it in 2004, as previously stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan jones244 (talk • contribs)
When I heard the 50 cent article reached GA, I had to come and check it out. After seeing the article and your other contributions I couldn't help myself and had to log in to give you a barnstar. Your hard work is very much appreciated by readers of such articles like myself. — Tutmosis17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert my work on the September 11th Page? It was fair, resonable and just —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyguyfan (talk • contribs)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. You always seem to beat me to reverting the vandalism! Wikidudeman(talk)20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for Vandalizing
It was stupid idea. I was trying to show a friend Wikipedia's ability to edit, well, virtually anything. Then I got carried away and started to write stupid things, knowing they would be reverted. I know you guys work hard to keep WikiPedia from being a virtual 'tag' wall, and here's my formal apology. Sorry guys :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.63.144 (talk • contribs)
Need help with film article
I am a history student at UGA and I have created and edited Abby Singer (film) as a film history project. I need to improve this article. Also it has been said that it is not notable. Please help CamdawgUGA01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I did some digging and found that you have done a lot to help address problems and issues with some articles. Also you seemed to have been a good netural person to have some help and input on the Abby Singer (film) article. Thanks for all your help. It means a lot. CamdawgUGA19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria above but does not fall under one of the designated categories below may or may not be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions. When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. If you want help in assessing whether a use is acceptable, please ask at Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content may also be useful. These are places where those who understand copyright law and Wikipedia policy are likely to be watching.
Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.
Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
THEY ARE POSTERS, they all have a Fair Use rationale. There is nothing on the Examples of unacceptable use states that posters can;t be used, Why are there posters on movie articles. What's the posters for Titanic, or Star Wars do??? If you can't have all the posters of Pokemon on a page than you might as well remove all of the posters on all of the movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldatlas1989 (talk • contribs)
G-Unit Records
Please check out the G-Unit Records article, see how there is all this unecessary information about every single artist on imprint labels owned by other G-Unit Records artists? Now, check out Universal Music Group. They only mention the labels, but do not list all these artists. What's worse, is that most of those artists are not directly signed to the record label. User:The-G-Unit-Boss seems to be having some trouble understanding that just because artist X is on an imprint owned by an artist on Y Records, that does not mean that X is signed to Y. Here is my version, and then you take a look at his version. Not to mention this current version has a few more formatting errors. Can you do something, work on my version, improve it some more? I told the user I would stop editing the article to avoid edit-warring, but I just don't understand how that can be a correct version of what the article should look like. --- Realest4Life21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, we don't need to mention all these non-notable members. Also, you see how the unreleased members albums are in a table... why? Why not in a list? You can state why the album was never released in their respective articles. Also, some other linking problems, with years, minor ones, but they should still be fixed. I don't see any other record label mentioning all these non-notable artists signed to minor imprint labels. Why is G-Unit Records so special? --- Realest4Life22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
There was some edit-war for about 5-10 minutes, after which I gave up and told him I would try to stay away from G-Unit Records and G-Unit. He will listen to you anyway, since you managed to get the 50 Cent article to GA status. Obviously that means a lot to him so he will think you know what you're doing. As for me, he starts to argue over italicizing websites (e.g. Rolling Stone and Def Sounds), so I don't have much of a chance. --- Realest4Life22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a message concerning a similar issue with these imprint labels here (I know, I wrote a whole essay). This is why I am saying that there is no need to mention all these artists at the G-Unit Records article, because they are not signed to G-Unit. I have no idea who started this, but it is wrong, just like saying G-Unit is signed to Aftermath Entertainment and Shady Records. Even I was wrong when I named the section "Record labels distributed by G-Unit", because it should say "Imprint record labels owned by G-Unit artists". On a positive note, The-G-Unit-Boss and I have finally started to work cooperatively on articles, so maybe he will listen now that I explained why those imprint labels should only be given a mention at the G-Unit Records article. Oh and I forgot to congratulate you on bringing the 50 Cent article to GA status. Good job. P.S. – Didn't you bring the In da Club article to GA status as well? --- Realest4Life23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Man, if you could just tell The-G-Unit-Boss what you just told me... that would be so helpful. This guy does not understand that you don't just recreate deleted material. I already told him about it, he actually plans on re-creating the G-Unit feuds article again. --- Realest4Life12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, I left The-G-Unit-Boss a message, see the massive fourth paragraph (not counting crossed out paragraphs) here. I think I covered everything there. --- Realest4Life15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Doctor's Advocate
About the Doctor's Advocate album, I would love to help. It's on my watchlist. Just tell me what I should do, I haven't really expanded articles before, just clean-up, formatting, citing, vandalism, and that's about it. --- Realest4Life12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would love to help as well. Realest4Life and I have been working together for a while now and maintained the Curtis article pretty well I think so maybe we could get a little collabo going here. Let me know, thanks. --Ayoleftyz02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I am actually saying is I would like to help you expand. I would like to learn how to expand by editing with you. Would that be OK? --- Realest4Life00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
All right then, so can Ayoleftyz join too? Also, maybe you'll want to check this out. It's to help Ayoleftyz and I be organized and know which articles we need to work on right now. If you would like to join there and help us, that would be awesome. Basically, we all help each other on articles that interest us, so if you would help us on articles from our watchlist that need help, then we will have to help you also. If you don't want to join or you don't have time, then it's OK, but please let me know. Also please tell Ayoleftyz if he can also try to do the same thing as I am going to do (learn from you on how to make a GA), so leave him a message if he can or can't. --- Realest4Life15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the message Spellcast. I just started seriously editing about 4 months ago so I still have a lot to learn but I respect your work and what you have done for a lot of articles so it would be a great learning experience. --Ayoleftyz01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There are two things that I want to talk about. One, tell me if you think you would like to join our "miniproject". Two, do you have any instant messengers? If you do, what is your e-mail address or whatever, because I would like to add you to keep in touch, or discuss how to improve articles. If you don't want to, then I understand. Thank you. --- Realest4Life03:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, what's up? You haven't added me yet, if you didn't have the time, just tell me what your e-mail addresses are and I will add you, OK? Bye. --- Realest4Life14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Her Name Is Nicole...
Hey Spellcast what's up? I was wondering if you would be interested in helping Realest4Life and I keep the Her Name Is Nicole article tolerable. I have done a lot of work to it and have began to weed out the groupies/falsies, but it would really help if you checked up on it when you got time from here on out. Let me know, thanks. --Ayoleftyz08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, same stuff, new day. It gets old reverting people's "work" but they don't seem to understand that it's not the correct way to edit. I appreciate the help, good lookin' out. Oh and as for my images, yeah I have heard that same thing but a couple of admins have checked my page and nothing was done so I'll stick it out until something goes down. --Ayoleftyz09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I will have to look into "Twinkle" for sure. Also, as for the images I'll remove them ASAP, I just have to think of what to put there now instead of images haha. --Ayoleftyz09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to have been cleared up. Looks like there was some sockpuppetry as well, but it seems cleared up. Thanks for the help. :) -WarthogDemon20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies about the revert I thought you removed some information unnecessarily but I now see you just ordered it differently. (Rezter11:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
The Game's filmography shouldn't be included in his discography becuase a discography "is the study and listing of sound recordings". and if you see on such articles as 50 Cent [[Snoop Dogg], Ice Cube and LL Cool J there filmographies aren;t included in there discography.--Shadyaftrmathgunit22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I looked over the article and it looks really good. Great work! I just noticed a few things that could be improved upon before bringing it to FLC.
U.S. sales for the The Massacre need to be sourced
There probably should be a note added under the albums section explaining what the dashes mean
I am asking for help. Is this source reliable? http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=239085&aid=1079194 Does this mean that Early Winter is the fourth single from Gwen Stefani's Album The Sweet Escape. Please reply soon if you can. I want to make a page for it. Thanks! Luxurious.gaurav 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But the song is mentioned in the singles column. Even the recording comapny's name in used. A site like Billboard can't simply use the name of a big company like Interscope just like that. Luxurious.gaurav18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Mixtapes
To be honest, I don't really care. Some mixtapes should not have articles (e.g. "Chopped & Screwed" mixtapes), while others should (e.g. Blood Brothers by Lil' Wayne and The Game, or other notable mixtapes). Why do you ask though? --- Realest4Life02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Re-Advocate is a bootleg, doesn't belong here, use that for the AfD, the other mixtapes, "Born in the Bay", "Let The Game Begin", and "Aint No Game", they are just some other DatPiff/unofficial/non-notable mixtapes. I would support your AfDs for those mixtapes, and many other ones, although some should stay (some of the You Know What It Is mixtapes for example). --- Realest4Life14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Odd; it's probably some vandal who writes explicit lyrics and changes IPs. After my talk page, they wrote similar things on a couple of other pages too. Evidently they go after users who edit a lot in the music-related articles. :) Acalamari15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
spellcast, are you kind of *** or what?! unsourced?! you know what a source is?! you've got the birthdates of the three actors!!! what more do you need?! please think before making "undos" (yes, you've got a brain - - or i hope so) 84.227.48.3307:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
for history: your reply on my page: Greetings there. I think there's a misunderstanding. I removed this edit because it was original research. This basically means that you can not add information on Wikipedia unless it has been published by a reliable source. If you can find a website that mentions that observation you added, feel free to add it, but I doubt there is any. Most importantly though, that information is trivia and should thus be avoided. Although it's interesting, information like that is regarded as indiscriminate and should be avoided. If you still have questions about this, feel free to leave a message. Thanks. Spellcast 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) shows than you're more *** than what i thought, sorry to tell you this! you obviously do NOT know what original research' is: to read a birthdate is NOT original research, period! and why should trivia avoided?!? are you god?
No, even though you'd think so, he isn't. He is only signed to Aftermath Entertainment, Interscope Records, and Shady Records, go to Billboard.com and search for one of his singles/albums, somewhere it will say "Imprints: Shady/Aftermath", and "Distributing Label: Interscope". He is only signed to G-Unit as part of the G-Unit group, but it doesn't distribute his solo shit. Something about him creating the label only for his artists, ask Ayoleftyz about that. By the way dude, seriously archive your talk page. --- Realest4Life13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the vinyl covers of "I Get Money" and "Ayo Technology", for example, you will only see the Aftermath and Shady logos. --- Realest4Life14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at this. That's like the ultimate Aftermath Entertainment fansite, and it confirms everything I say. I think it's actually an acceptable source since it's even used in the Dr. Dre article, if not, then I still have some evidence to back me up, along with Billboard and the single covers. --- Realest4Life14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about BWS, but I know that although people think Eminem is not signed to Shady, he in fact released The Eminem Show and Encore (The Re-Up and the 8 Mile soundtrack don't count) under Shady Records, I checked the Billboard website and it has Shady/Aftermath as the imprints for Encore. Obviously Billboard is a very reputable source. See here. --- Realest4Life15:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference, it means that G-Unit only distributes 50 Cent's group material, and that infobox should be strictly related to 50 Cent, not G-Unit, we have a G-Unit page. If 50 is not signed to G-Unit solo, then it would be pointless to have the label in the infobox because none of his solo shit is distributed by G-Unit. His group stuff yeah, but that's what the group page is for. --- Realest4Life15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Long story short, 50 Cent is not signed to G-Unit as a solo artist, only with G-Unit as a group. If you want the full explanation, read on below. --Ayoleftyz20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(This reply, by me was taken from the discussion page of Shady Records) It is definitely not correct to remove Shady from any Eminem album after The Marshall Mathers LP. Any album he has released after The Marshall Mathers LP has been on Shady through a venture with Aftermath/Interscope. So it is correct to have it listed. As for 50 Cent not being released through G-Unit, that label was created through Interscope for the G-Unit members only by 50 Cent and Sha Money XL through Jimmy Iovine. If they add a member to the group, they are automatically signed to G-Unit/Interscope. 50 Cent had the label created solely for the group and its affiliates/members, not for him. He is already signed through Shady/Aftermath/Interscope and does not have his own “personal label” like Shady Records is to Eminem. It's difficult to explain but you should get the gist of what I am saying. Also if you look at Young Buck, or any G-Unit member/affiliate for that matter, he/they is/are signed through G-Unit/Interscope, like I mentioned before. Why is this, because he was signed to G-Unit which is distributed through Interscope, thus explaining why he is signed to both labels. If you sign to G-Unit, you sign to Interscope. That’s how it works and explains why he isn’t listed through Shady/Aftermath/Interscope/G-Unit. Also one more thing, if you look at the G-Unit Records page you will notice 50 Cent isn’t listed as a solo artist on the G-Unit label but listed within the group G-Unit, this further explains my argument. --Ayoleftyz20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, but just because G-Unit is signed to G-Unit/Interscope, it doesn't mean they are all signed as a solo artist too. Just like the Prodigy example, he is not signed to G-Unit solo, but as a group Mobb Deep is signed to G-Unit. You understand? OK, so G-Unit might go in his infobox, using my example, or maybe you can say something like "see talk page". --- Realest4Life15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Brokeback Mountain poster
If the copyright owner is indeed the film studio, I think it would be clearer if the film studio was mentioned on the image description page. – Ilse@12:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I commend your efforts to battle vandalism, but in this diff you left a comment stating that the edits were vandalism, when it seems clear to me that they are just inappropriate original research, and probably intended constructively. Please be more careful in the future to avoid the impression of Wikipedians being incivil to newcomers. — The Storm Surfer19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
stop vandalising lloyd banks discography its annoying my refference proves rotten apple went gold and sold 800,000 worldwide
so stop leaving these messagees saying I'm wrong your wrong and are obviously not a music expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irnakk2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Fine keep on putting lies on his discography I wouldn't want you to write a report tattle tale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irnakk2 (talk • contribs) 20:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
New Feud
Would this be a feud 50 cent called chamillionaire someone who dosen't sell and a gospel rapper.
Would that be a feud? Secondandonly 05:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think that was bad POV, because he has been praised by critics for his style, and I even had a specific source I was thinking of when I wrote that, but I can't find the link anymore. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on the article though. Jay21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, some mixtapes (e.g. Blood Brothers) can have sales/chart positions/critical reviews/themes, etc., but the ones you did nominate aren't. --- Realest4Life02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It will have an article eventually, the Wayne stans always create articles for his mixtapes. Obviously it will chart (2 famous artists, pretty hyped up actually), it will sell about 100,000 or so, it can include some themes (although Wayne doesn't have many themes), and it will be reviewed by hip-hop websites, trust me. Some mixtapes deserve articles, but a lot of them don't, like that "chopped and screwed" bullshit. I hate it when people actually create articles on those mixtapes. --- Realest4Life14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
really, you have a problem with what a source is, it's a pity... from the pump:
from you: Yes, it's an interesting trivial fact. But is there a source that recognises this observation? Is there a source out there that says "oh look, the actress playing the mother was nine years younger than the actors playing her children!" Spellcast01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Such a source is unnecessary if there are sources for their birth dates. This is an obvious factual observation, like finding the population density of a region for which you have the population and the area. Atropos05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
etc.
i can show you another example: Fantastic Planet by rené laloux: i just wrote away one of the "writers" EVEN if all over internet he is credited as a writer of the movie, and he is NOT (at most he is the english translator) - - - BUT everybody on the net did copy the error from imdb, or from wiki, or from another website... shame! 84.226.96.24307:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the way I look at it, the articles on the mixtapes can be considered important, because unlike most retail albums, mixtapes contain material that can be considered important to the history and/or style of the artists involved. And also, since Mixtapes don't always have a lot of information about them available, it's easy for people to get confused when searching for certain Tapes, and a place like this, with articles about them, can help people, such as serious music collectors, or even just fans, to have a reference for what the Mixtapes contain, so as not to be duped into buying fakes or bootlegs of the Tapes in question. But look, if you ultimately decide the Tapes need to be deleted, then I won't complain about it. I put a lot of time and research into a lot of the tapes, but if they really don't meet Wikipedia's standards, then do what you wish with them. Jay22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: mixtapes.
Sorry it took so long to get back. Unfortunately, certain areas of Wikipedia (especialy coverage of current music rleeases) are beyond help, because crufters and fanatics are always going to pile on tons of unprofessional, unreferenced crap over whatever good writing you try to do. I really don't know what advice I can give you, other than to try to take force the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Truth be told, mixtapes shouldn't be on Wikipedia as it is since they are illegal, but I think we have articles on warez and other such things, so... --FuriousFreddy23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the feud thing. Sorry it took me a day I'm making a life changing choice
getting a MY SPACE, Crap I feel like a sellout. Secondandonly 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to User talk:Pinchofhope because, while your edit summary read "PROD nomination of Online Piracy Funds Terrorism.", the actual edit removed a huge portion of the talk page apparently unrelated to the putative reason, including the mangling of one topic (a post chopped off mid-word). I don't know what you were trying to accomplish on this other editor's talk page, but at the very least, it didn't seem constructive. ~ Jeff Q(talk)02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you edited the Kanye West discography from 3x Platinum to 2x platinum saying that the RIAA search says 2x. I was just curious, how can you see that on the search results page? When it has 2 "Multi Platinum"'s then it is 2x? Thanks ! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks. So if it has two instances of "Multi-Platinum" it would be 3x and four of them would be 3x?. Its a good source for discography pages. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just nominated a load of mixtapes for deletion. Just letting you know in case you wanted to comment. Somebody removed all the "PROD's" from them which was pretty annoying. I'll probably move onto some non-notable mixtapes from G-Unit Records artists after these ones are gone. Anyway for the full list just see my userpage. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤10:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
September 2007
How exactly did I vandalize the T-Rock page? All I did was add the album covers, and that's not vandalism. If there was an inappropriate image added, it wasn't me, so I suggest checking the history of the page. --L-Burna12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you need to do the same thing for every other page that has album covers in their discography, cuz I know quite a few that do and have never had anyone like you trying to change it. That's not vandalism, homie, that's simply showing the viewer the album cover for that album... --L-Burna17:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Explain to me how adding the album covers is vandalism. Why would it be any different showing them on the artist page than the album page? There are tons of pages (i.e. Fat Joe) that do it, and haven't had people like you making a fuss about it, so I really don't see a problem with having the album covers on the artist page. --L-Burna14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Spellcast, I have a question about the format of the discographies, when I first came on Wikipedia back in 2005 or so the discographies were like this:
I just wanted to know what format is the right one to use. Apprecite it if you can answer my question. User:SameAsItEverWas|SameAsItEverWas]]SameAsItEverWas21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand what your saying, but "The Truth", "Big Business" and "Man on Fire", come on now, can you reconsider, these are kinda known Bazel02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Laura Pausini NPOV
CC:
I take issue with User:Spellcast and other "crusaders" like him/her with purist stances against the mention of awards in the opening sentence of an article. Now, I say "crusaders" because even Spellcast admits, "I've been removing every mention I see about 'Grammy/Academy/Emmy winning' etc. in the opening sentence."
Their argument is seemingly logical—seemingly, because it's also biased. No one ever makes mention of the Nobel Prize. A quick scan through the biographies of Nobel laureates reveals that 3 in 4 such articles mention the award in the opening sentence. No one seems to have a problem with this. Why? Nobel laureates were nominated and selected by a group of their peers and/or "authorities" in their discipline just like Academy Award– and Grammy Award–winners. Why the double standard? Why is one prize held in higher esteem than all others? User:FuriousFreddy suggests we "crack open some professional print encyclopedias" to see their level of professionalism, but even these mention Nobel laureate in the opening sentence of their entries.
Secondly, the purists seem to have a problem with quoting precedent (unless it's convenient for them, of course). User:Extraordinary Machine suggests sympathizers who claim that "other articles have similar intros" are ignorant. FuriousFreddy states "if everyone else is screwing up, that means you'd screw up right alongside them." It will greatly inconvenience these users to know that even featured articles (Bette Davis, Henry Fonda, Jake Gyllenhaal, Diane Keaton, Norman Borlaug are but a few examples that a quick scan yielded) which Wikipedia holds in greatest esteem contain the "screwed-up," "ignorant" practice of including awards in the opening sentence. Perhaps the real "verbal fluff" is Wikipedia's claim:
Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.
I have a hard time believing five articles with NPOV "problems" in the opening sentence slipped past the editors.
Finally, FuriousFreddy says the practice is acceptable if "their winning a certain award was particularly groundbreakign in some way." It just so happens that Laura Pausini's Grammy gave her the distinction of being the first Italian female to win the award. In the Grammy Award's 50-year history, Pausini is only the second Italian to win the American award. Had Spellcast taken the time to read the article, he/she would have known this. But again, there is a fixation among editors to do away with "violations" that they skip over context to serve their righteous campaign.
Because of these reasons I am undoing Spellcast's edit. I have read the purists' arguments and what I see is bias and discrimination. Oskarg95604:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Spellcast, thanks for responding. When I noticed you had edited the opening sentence of the Laura Pausini article I wasn't upset, I wasn't offended, I really had no opinion. But I wanted to know why, since you had failed to explain in the edit summary. After reading your user discussion page I came to understand that it was a problem with POV. Now, I've read the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and clearly understand. I am, by no means, contesting the policy. What I am challenging here is the policing. It seems that only performing artists' biographies are targeted for violations. What about Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize–, Peabody Award–, Medal of Honor recipients? What about Olympic medalists? No one is up in arms about the inclusion of awards in the opening sentence of their articles. Are these awards more valid than performing arts awards (namely, the Academy–, Grammy–, and Emmy Awards)? If this isn't discriminating policing then I don't know what is. Then, in an effort to sway opinion the purists make some arguments that undermine and invalidate Wikipedia's claim of excellence when sympathasizers quote precedent. Featured articles are supposedly reviewed rigorously for neutrality, style, etc. And yet they're also full of "ignorance" and "screw–ups." Are featured articles the standard to emulate or not? I understand the NPOV policy. The policy is not the issue. The issue is neutrality itself. I'd love to hear the purists admit they themselves have been bias and discriminating in their crusade. I'd love to see a real effort for NPOV on all biographies, not just performing artists'. The revision on the Laura Pausini page is my form of protest. Until I see reform in the purist circle, then I'll be convinced of neutrality. Oskarg95605:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that you understand where I was coming from. I guess the only thing we can do now is to change it when we see it, since no one had replied to our message at WP:MoS.
Hi Spellcast. I couldn't help but notice your widespread nominations for deletion of mixtape articles. Although I don't outright disagree with some of the reasons you've given, and of course assume good faith in your edits, it seems as if such wide-spread actions should be done with some sort of consensus. If there has been some sort of community-based assessment of mixtape articles overall please let me know. Otherwise, it seems as if you, wholly in good faith, are tagging an entire class of articles based on your interpretation of policy. Most importantly, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think this is something that should be brought up within the community since it seems to be an issue involving a large number of articles. Does that make sense? I'm not articulating myself very well, but hopefully my point is somewhat clear. Drewcifer19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Remove your personal bias.
The House of Pain article has sources. Go to the Daredevil Wikipedia page, and look at the soundtrack. The song is there. Same with Jock Jams volume 4, You didn't even leave anybody a chance to put sources. I'm working on it right now, and if you remove it, I will just revert it, over, and over, and over. I've seen you make edits about sources to Everlast's page too, and just removed the thing without putting a {{fact}} tag on it. Come on, son, at least be civil with it. You put the fact tag on it for a month, and if theres no sources after a month, you remove it. You don't just remove it because you have a stick up your ass. Don't let me catch you doing that again. S0u1a55a551n520:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
About Jaranda's user page
Hello Spellcast, I couldn't find any articles listed on the deleted revisions of Jaranda's user page, but I did find a link to this subpage of his. That might be what you're looking for. Acalamari00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey bro - is there any way to extend the deletion date you gave on this this article? ...as I haven't had the opportunity to really look into it. Light discussion that I wanna add - I was wondering that even though the article is suggested for partial deletion due to having not charted, isn't it still acceptable as it's a street single which released with a music video which would be worth noting somehow at least (maybe not neccesarily with its own article)? I admit I'm not really bothered as I'm not much of a fan of this album that it was released from, but I'm just putting out there for the sake of public knowledge/information or whatever. => Harish - 09:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me - I put your point into consideration and accepted it (it is what it is). Peace. => Harish - 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How come we can't use the wikitable for the discographies? Yeah I know both of these formats are legal and the border doesnt do anything to the info, but it makes it neater and easier to see and if you remember about a year or two ago most of the discographies had the wikitable fomat. So, why not go wikitable?SameAsItEverWas13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, look, you go to UNIVERSITY or whatever, I go to HIGH SCHOOL. Grade 11. It should be 1000 times easier for you to do this shit than it is for me. If I could start working on it, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to finish it. I think I can find some more reviews which mention the lyrics (I think I remember something in the Prefix Magazine review), you can format it and everything. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yo, sorry 2 bother u, but i'm tryin' 2 get Straight Outta Compton's quality up 2 a higher standard, and i kno u've dun alot of work on articles so i was wonderin' if u wud tell me wot standard it iz @ now, so i can c where im startin from. I know its gon take aload of work but i'd like 2 c where it iz @ the moment - Keep It Real - RealComptonG16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yo, thnx fo fixin' up the page a bit. Yeah I was kinda basing the page on Illmatic, i'll hav a look @ Enta da Stage aswell tho. So do u think its a stub @ the moment ? holla back - Keep It Real - RealComptonG15:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
mate i use this name for everything, google it ffs, i come up, i play alot online games, and iv used this nickname since march 2006.
the official police documents stat 50 cent was shot 5 times not 9, i will find a source for that. RIAA says its 6x platnium, so why dont they reconize that its sold 8 million then??? instead of 6. Tony yayo is in his late 30's not his 20's. this is hardly vandalism just cleaning up on a few facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowghosts (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yo, Ryda came up wit an idea 4 a West Coast Hip hop project and we think ur help wud b massive, cud ya add ur name here if ur interested. Thnx G - Keep It Real - RealComptonG18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I ask of you to please refrain from leaving unecessary and irrelevant messages. I do not wish to have my time wasted by preposterous claims.Kskk204:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A Page with NO SOURCES
Hey buddy! I think you're the only one person who can help. I've edited million times this page for not citing any sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Dances_%28song%29 but they never add sources claiming that it's true what they write..
Please act as soon as possible.
It's not right to add certifications & peak positions without adding any sources..
Thank you.--Chronisgr22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No you're absolutely right. It was my mistake. I thought that My Kind of Christmas sold 1.5 m worldwide. I was wrong. I'm so ashamed because i'm a fan of Christina..!
User:Chronisgr|Chronisgr]] 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the category, are there any musicians that were shot? I'm totally not sure which one to take to WP:CFD; rappers and musicians are almost the same thing, perhaps they can be merged into one category? Also, there is nothing wrong with wiki-linking words like "album", "robbery", and "rapping" only once per section. Just words like "the", "and", "if", etc., never have to be linked. As for redirects, they should really be used for disambiguated-like topics, like hatnotes and dab articles (if you haven't already, see piping). Questions? Comments? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have leave home. If you want, delink only "album" and the like, then I won't revert (long as you don't revert every single thing I did! =^_^=) Could you kindly begin that cfd nomination? Talk later, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Crowded House awards seems fine to me. I might have worded it poorly before, but I was probably referring to cases like this where color is being used to emphasize wins, which implies that those categories are more important and asserts a positive POV for the artist. 17Drew03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Something happened in this page: Elena Paparizou Perhaps someone removed everything or what else? Check out HISTORY.
Greets--Chronisgr12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, OK, I know about references and all that shit, but I want to change some refs so that the last name of the author goes first. What do I do if it has 2 authors? For example, here, what do I do with it, since it has 2 authors? Or maybe Tim Kash shouldn't be credited at all? Even if he shouldn't be, I still wanna know what to do. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I looked around a bit and did some archive searches. You may know this already but most of the time, news stories appear on .biz first and then .com a little bit later. Billboard also doesn't reveal exact numbers either, I believe one would need a subsciption to SoundScan's Int'l website (http://www.soundscan.com/international.html). Anyhoo, I found one story that gives Curtis 691,000 copies in the U.S. on its first week.... another gives it 72,000 copies in the UK... both of these are probably just as easy to find on .com and this is hardly a worldwide total. I'll keep lookin' but I don't know how much more I'll find. - eo22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, i have currently nominated The Game's non-notable mixtapes for deletion just like you did for 50 Cent's. Voice your opinion in the following link: Here. West CoastRyda11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, User:Samil20 has got multiply chances and if i'm not mistaken his fourth chance yet he ignores each one and adds incorrect information to Nas main page. He keeps adding The Lost Tapes and Greatest Hits to the Nas#Discography. It's not the correct place to put we have enough of place to put it in the discography. So i think he should be reported to the admins and get a second block as he has already been once. West CoastRyda16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, I finally found a good image from KRS-One. And I am sure it is taken by the author him/herself because it has additional info, like which camera etc... --West CoastRyda12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
OMG, Samil is still saying that I should be blocked too. What a joke, he's been giving 100th of chances but still continues. He did another revertion on the discography yet again even though he was just blocked some hour before. You can discuss the Nas discography issue on it's talkpage. West Coast - Ryda14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see the problem. I am using Internet Explorer 7 which may be why mine look exactly the same before and after. It may be the Firefox is different. The reason I reverted your reversion was because I thought that it looked the same on all browsers. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤17:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the prod and added some sources in both instances, as well as adding fair use rationales for the images. I would have done the same had I come across the articles/images in my own searches- I was a less experienced editor when I got involved with these. Feel free to take the articles to AfD if you aren't convinced. Happy editing! J Milburn16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Spellcast. I was wondering if you would like an RfA nomination? I've been (secretly!) watching you for a couple of months and think you'd make a fine addition to the team. Let me know your thoughts, regards Ryan Postlethwaite17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Associated acts
In 50 Cent's, Biggie's, Pac's, and others boxes who is supposed to be in the associated acts section? Are we supposed to list everyone the artist collaborated with in their lifetime? If so, then I think I did a good job at Pac's. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Cuckoo Clock of Doom.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Cuckoo Clock of Doom.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
No problem, just got me a little worried that all his stuff would be deleted, and hence more deletion reviews. T Rex | talk02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I did provide sources, AMG a few others, at his DRV page, no one has looked so far I think. I'll just rewrite it in my sandbox with the sources and propose to recreate it later. T Rex | talk03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Nas Discography
Note: I placed the same on West Coast Ryda's page -
Regarding the Nas article, I made a three revert rule report and he was blocked for 24 hours. It's probably best to discuss the issue on the Nas talkpage. Also, vandalism templates shouldn't be used if the edit isn't vandalism. This is more of a content dispute. Spellcast10:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet I was blocked and not WestCoast when he violated the same rule I did when I didn't even vandalize so his violation has no justification. This is inconsistent punishment. Where do I report such things?--Sosa02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
List of notable vegetarians flaged for deletion
I agree in principle with what you say. I did not create the content merely moved it from Vegetarianism. However people keep adding it, or some variation of it, to the main page of vegetarianism. So its either keep it separate and let those who have strong feelings play there, or continue to delete it from the main page. If you choose to delete it please police there too. --Mig77(t)07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CivilBrandDVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CivilBrandDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Attack of the Mutant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Attack of the Mutant.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Candy Shop video shot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Candy Shop video shot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Candyshop.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Candyshop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
){kind=link}
