User talk:Ericorbit/Archive03

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ericorbit. 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 saw people doing the same on Hilary Duff's singles discography article, so I thought it was the 'wikiway' to order that. I'm sorry, but isn't it handier to use 'rowspan' so that it looks categorized than have the name of the album posted next to every song that was released from the album? And where should I post suggestions for wikipedia. By the way, those are not my own templates, I saw them too on several other pages (like Beyoncé). -- Luigi-ish 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done for your work on removing 'tripe' from her page. I am no fan, but it is on 'my watchlist', and it is not the first time I have noticed exaggerated claims as to chart positions, record sales etc. Indeed, I would not have though her fairly modest chart achievements in U.S. and UK would justify this line taken from the article - Taylor Dayne has sold over 25 million albums and 50 million singles worldwide. Any thoughts ?!

Derek R Bullamore 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent reversion. You beat me to it by nano seconds ! The rubbish will not stay away from this article though, will it ?!

Derek R Bullamore 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ericorbit

I think that Fred Bronson made a mistake on his column. It should be 932 and not 942. He is correct that SexyBack is the 971 number one of the "Rock Era". As "Poor Little Fool" was the 40th number one of the Rock Era there was 39 pre hot 100 number ones which makes the current one the 932nd one. At first I thought he was counting in some double sided hits but I don't think he is.

Best wishes,

Phildav76 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well no need for me to do a manual count - I already have an MS Excel file with all the Rock era number ones in it! No doubt someone will write to Fred pointing out his error. - Phildav76 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will wait to see if anyone else has written. I have written before but without success. I did win the Trivia Quiz he ran a couple of times though. Phildav76 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I won some Billboard CDs - I have 4 of them! I cannot remember any of the questions though! Shame Fred ran out of ideas for it. - Phildav76 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For outstanding contributions to music articles, particularly edits involving Billboard magazine charts, I award you The Barnstar of High Culture. Your work deserves much more recognition. Extraordinary Machine 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Joel Whitburn's "A Century Of Pop Music" (Record Research, Inc., Menomonee Falls, WI), Roberta Flack had the #1 song for 1972 and also for 1973, but I'm not going to waste the time to amend the article again. -- Stormyhawn 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)stormyhawn

Jermaine Dupri has confirmed on Janet's official site that Call on Me has hit number one, so all of your nitpicky edits will just be reverted later. Also when editing a page don't remove things like ' </ref> ' it messes up the page.
Thanks!
Thankyoubaby 01:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE - my response to this user, on their talk page, was later REMOVED from the talk page by Thankyoubaby (it is still in the page's history). - eo

hi sorry about the revert i reverted back from that ip 69 he always adds a cher crazy link, anyway i was lookin for the youtube links to delete them but couldnt find them that article is rediculously long now weird! anyway my ip is 66 something n im also Rsf7589...just to let u know i will be expanding the discography page like ive done with the farewell tour page...im the one thats added videography, farewell tour page and so...do u happen to have msn? i would really like to discuss some facts of cher that im not clear on 66.30.14.0 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Howdy again, Regarding that entry about the follow-up tracks to "Wow!", I did see a bootleg somewhere on one of Bananarama fan sites that was selling copies of the tracks which included "Nothing Lasts Forever". But I can't remember where I saw that. Also, have you checked out the Bananarama inteviews on YouTube? There are some insightful ones, and many of them reflect the things mentioned by some of the contributors on the bio. Ciao for now... Banzaiboy 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oui, oui, I have most of Shakespears Sister's and Siobhan's stuff. But I don't know enough about them to write about them. The French & Saunders parody of "Stay" is hilarious. Banzaiboy 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But if you decide to make pages for their singles, I'll add whatever info I can. Also, I've been going through the Bananarama discography to make disambiguation pages (or references) wherever necessary. Banzaiboy 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that typing in "Break My Heart" results in a redirect to a Hilary Duff album. Is there any way an administrator can stop that redirect? The problem is that a DAB page link can't be posted on the appropriate page relating to that title. (As for Bananarama, I actually don't really listen to any of their stuff anymore, but the only album that I find listenable is Pop Life.)Banzaiboy 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know all the rules when I made those Celine Dion pages. If you could continue to clean them up, I would be very greateful. I will try not to make those misteakes creating new pages.

Thanks, Max

I see you removed the additional info I added, I don't really know of anyway to confirm the fact to your satisfaction other than to try to track down people who used to own snowball stands in the 80's, however, I absolutely guarantee that EVERYONE had banana flavored snowballs named "Bananarama" for years in the early to mid 80's. Please consider putting the info back as it is completely accurate. Thanks.

Hey Ericorbit, check the reasons why I changed the Siouxsie article on the discussion page of the article. I think I'm right, but read it please, probably I'm not. Phibrizoq 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, now I checked, and it seems that I accidentally removed some words... it wasn't my intention, it's probably the computer filter (noting that it removed curse words)... However, I did intend to change the genre thing. Phibrizoq 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

hey do u have access to billboard.com i just want to know because there some charts i want research but only members can access them... im in no way askin for personal information just askin if u do? Rsf7589 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

o really thats kool...wat i been tryin to do lately is just find specific charts for cher like hot single sales which dont who on the billboard site... a lot of people confuse all or nothing they think it charted as 38 on hot 100 singles when it really charted on hot 100 single sales Rsf7589 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

hi thanx at the moment im subscribing to billboard to get access to all the info thanx for the help Rsf7589 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

hey thnx a lot although i just researched billboard.biz and they hav lots of info not just cher so im gonna subscribe thanx for ur help Rsf7589 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir. :) GassyGuy 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I try to stick to articles related to musicians I like, but sometimes I stray away from those (the LeToya discography page, for instance - LeToya isn't even popular here, I remember the "Torn" video was on once, and I changed the channel pretty quickly). Keeping articles whose topics interest me free of fancruft, image problems and bad formatting is enough for me, though; gee, why can't I be a fan of obsure musicians from years gone by? :( I seem to gravitate toward prepackaged pop stars (many fans of whom unfortunately aren't aware of the policies, guidelines and want normally goes into - and stays out of - an encyclopedia) more than anything; speaking of which, would you mind taking a look at the Hilary Duff (album) article and leaving a comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hilary Duff (album)/archive1? The article's probably too long and poorly written, and I'd prefer if it wasn't, so please dive in wherever necessary! Please, I'm begging you! (Okay, I'm in a silly mood today...) Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

can i ask you to please stop moving the articles from (single) to (song), the title is incorrect as shown by Bombs (single). The article is about the single contains track listings for the single, and has an info box for the single, therefore calling it song is incorrect. Also please stop writing articles on a british subject from an American point of view (they should be from a neutral point of view). Also wikipedia's policy on English usage is that the form of English should be the same as the subjects origin, therefore since faithless are a British group, the articles should be in British english. --Chappy84 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if it wasn't you, but the Salva Mea article contained the text "in their homeland" which makes it written from an american point of view. This shouldn't happen. As for the single/song debate, I've seen far more articles with the suffix (single) than (song), so unfortunately I feel I'm not the only one with this point of view.--Chappy84 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that if a single is simply re-released say a year later then it doesn't warrant another article (similar with albums as I've done on Come Here), but when the song is rather different and also written by different artists then I feel it does, this is why I did this with Release the Pressure and Release The Pressure (1996 single) as to all intents and purposes it's a different song. I also, as I have stated, feel putting song for single isn't descriptive of the articles subject and will mis-inform the reader of the articles contents. --Chappy84 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

hi listen someone out there, brand new user is really messing up the whole madonna charts thing they are adding lots of stuff and changin it to the way they want it to look, should i revert? because hes also added some unsourced stuff, ive worked hard to have every chart in jump sourced and hes changed everything without discussion Rsf7589 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it was a little messy and i did some clean up on jump i did revert but i will add the info thats real and that has sources, but he must also learn to discuss in the page Rsf7589 01:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, there! I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that you added (probably by accident) a warning to User:66.240.31.67's userpage. Please make sure these warnings are on the talk page, so other users see them when leaving additional warnings. And don't forget to sign your posts, so we know who left them :-) Thanks, — Editor at Large^(speak) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I know how hectic/frustrating reverting vandalism can be :-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

hi OMG someone fucked that up again u know what i did i went to every chart page i know whether its singles, dance or airplay and i took the source down if the users dont provide a source for the things they add i will revert they keep puttin bs on the charts sayin that jump went to 1 in italy while my proof from FIMI the official italian charts say it debuted this week at 39...so do u think thats right? to revert if no source is given...look at what ive done ive added every source to all countries charts Rsf7589 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks a lot Rsf7589 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My partial chart performance is maily about how the artist singles performed in other charts, the columns that I have seen mainly talk about how the singles did in the billboards hot 100 only. And partial becuase there are other singles that I am looking for to see how they did in other charts. And is only how they did in the USA because I focusing on this country since many single do not chart outside of this country and becuase is hard to find information about other countries music charts. About the colunms, so other users are kind enough to put the information on colunms for since I do not know how to do that.Angel,Isaac 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand and thank you for telling me. I do not want to see the performance on various charts, I just thought it would be useful for anybody who was looking for information on wikipedia about a certain song and see how it performed in other charts.Angel,Isaac 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I received permission to upload a picture from a photographer, but I do not know the tag I am supposed to use. I cannot seem to find it. He has not specific terms for this permision, so could you help find the proper tag I am supposed to use. Thanks for listening.Angel,Isaac 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Billboard Hot 100. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Metros232 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to this article, however you removed two catagories that Gary is clearly a part of. He had a top 100 hit with Alley Oop and he owns Garpax Records which is a Christian Music recording label. That is why the catagories were there. Again, I appreciate your efforts but I feel the catagories are legit and need to remain. Thank you Junebug52 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

hi u may have noticed that the user Greco dani is vadalising a lot of cher pages recently hes been tryint to split the cher discography page after i specifically told him that a couple of months back an administrator told me to leave as it is he wont listen ive warned him like 3 times and he keeps deleting my proposals for deletion of the pages hes started, i need help to propose his blockin im tryint to find out how to do it but i cant find it Rsf7589 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I knew it was probably going to be taken down even though it was obvious, but thanks for at least not getting up in the neck about it unlike some people do to edits I make...least you restored it. So, hope it was no trouble at all. Faded 12:54 29 November 2006 (UTC)

hey whats up with this new "policy" because of it many pics are disappearing Rsf7589 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Make sure that when you use album covers in articles, they are with the section about that album. Otherwise, it doesn't fit the criteria for fair use and it's a copyright violation. –ShadowHalo 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott McKenzie's chart topping song is incorrectly titled in the page heading. It should read "San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Some Flowers in Your Hair)". (Source: * Guinness Book of British Hit Singles - 19th Edition - ISBN 1-904994-10-5). I do not know how to change the page, or what effect it would have on existing wikilinks etc. The sad thing is I am old enough to remember the track as a teenager !

Anyhow, can you oblige (please), or point me in the right direction ? Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have had several Billboard Hot 100 chart trajectories deleted from the song pages I have contributed to. Is this totally not allowed (publishing that information on Wikipedia), or is there a certain way that it has to be that I am missing? You posted a comment on one of my pages with two links to sites that would discuss this but I was unable to find any direction. Thanks for your help. -- Btrujillo0307 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! -- Btrujillo0307 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is true. I know you say not to use another site besides Billboard but I have recieved numbers the night before the past 3 weeks and all three times it has been true. The site states that Beyonce is #1 this week with Irreplaceable. Akon is #2(I Wanna Love You) and #3(Smack That). Fergie jumped from #10-#4 and Justin/TI collabo is at #5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.217.201 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Good point... The person states it is the Hot 100... but who knows how trustworthy they are... Its not urgent information - and you can see i didn't change anything back :)

Well - last week the statement "Irreplaceable is Beyonces 4th #1" was released. And people automatically assumed it was on the Hot 100. When - it was actually the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop songs.

I noticed you are from Boston. I am looking for people to join Project Boston in order to clean up and expand wikipedia articles directly related to Boston. If you feel like helping out please join up. Markco1 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanfs for the changing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rbrandao (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

sorry about that, mate.

Thanks for reporting that. My first vandal/personal attack, such a milestone. —ShadowHalo 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that they now opened Billboard.Biz up to anyone, and I don't have a subscription, except to R&R. But if its going to be a issue we'll leave the links as it is. Robert Moore 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they got rid of the login back in August, but I still get R&R in the mail. All I did was go to Billboard.com and clicked on Billboard.biz and there it was. I believe they might be opening up the charts at Billboard.biz to anyone because it also worked at my workplace and at my sister's place without logging in. Robert Moore 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Besides, I would like to see the full chart online anyway since they're more accurate and saves us the headache when it comes to doing articles about the acts that get placed here by the posters that come over to wikipedia. Robert Moore 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Billboard.biz has reverted back login/subscription mode. Oh well it was nice while it lasted. User:Robert Moore 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I should help add some bands from Europe to List of bands from Europe. Mewtwowimmer 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to enter into dialogue here. I rewrote the the Disco Inferno (The Trammps song) article as it had no information about The Trammps version at all - it was all irrelevant info about the Lauper cover. I then split the Lauper version of the article off as it is a released single which means we can write an encyclopedic article about it, not just that she's recorded a cover. You reverted that - redirecting the lauper article to the trammps song one. This means anyone who goes to the trampps song article gets a load of info about the lauper cover. It can be done, but not until the trammps song article has enough content so that people don't get confused as to what the song is about. I'm going to switch back to my versions as I feel they work better at this time. 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better now, though I still think the trammps section could do with a bit more info - I'd like to see that section twice the size of the others as it's supposedly the main focus of the article.

However there is another issue. In your edit summaries you're saying "see WP:SONGS" as though it's a policy. It's not. It's not a policy, or even a guideline. It's just a wikiproject, it has no power to either expect or force other editors to conform to it. If another editor or group of editors decides there is a better or different way to approach singles/songs/tracks then it's not permissible for devotees/members/advocates of this project to go with the "our way or the highway" approach here. It's merely a discussion area in how some editors think this issue is best handled. I may decide in the future for instance that every single deserves it's own article. And WP:SONGS has no authority to say otherwise.exolon 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Major Problem. Mike Dillon 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Erasure 2006 Promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. ShadowHalo 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but Leo Sayer (you are probably too young - but he was a big transatlantic pop star in the 1970s and early 1980s) is currently appearing on Big Brother on UK TV. His wiki page is suddenly getting vandal hits from all angles. I am trying to stem the tide, and improve the article, but I think I am fighting a losing battle. What do you suggest ?

Derek R Bullamore 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hi how are you, i was wondering if you can help me with a doubt i have...recntly some users have changed the numbers of sales in the madonna discography saying that if hung up got 8.6m points then according to the UWC they must take 42% of those points and the outcome would be the actual sales. but that doesnt make sense because i mentioned to them that wat if the song received more sales then airplay, airplay for the UWC counts as 55%...they cant just change numbers without knowing whether a song received more sales than airplay or vice versa, i tried changing the name of the caterogry to points instead of sales because many artist have it this way its simpler and more specific rather than having inaccurate sales Rsf7589 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the Everyday People discrepancy. I had initially made an Everyday People page (when I was on my own computer, on the username Eptin). I then started changing all of the Everyday People links to go to the album page (because none currently referred to the Nicole C Mullens album). Lo and behold I later noticed that "Everyday People" by Sly and the Family Stone was actually a song, not an album. I then moved the "Album" page to a "Song" page, and changed all of the Sly links to redirect to the new Song page. This all took a while, but I think I'm finished. -- 71.112.6.128 08:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that isn't a Band Board but a board about chart and in that link are posted the billboard.biz news.Billboard.biz:

PROGRESS REPORTS

• The Red Hot Chili Peppers become the second act to twice top the Alternative chart with three songs from an album as "Snow ((Hey Oh))" climbs 2-1. "Snow" is the third straight track from "Stadium Arcadium" to ring the bell -- equaling the band's output from its 1999 album, "Californication." That matches the feat Green Day achieved with its 1994 set "Dookie" and 2004's "American Idiot": Both contained three chart-toppers ... Two bands take their maiden voyage on Alternative/Modern Rock, as the Kooks' "Naive" starts at No. 36 and Silversun Pickups bow at No. 40 with "Lazy Eye."

ok ok i understand the problem, but i'm sure that your official billboard.biz will be the same that this "• The Red Hot Chili Peppers become the second act to twice top the Alternative chart with three songs from an album as "Snow ((Hey Oh))" climbs 2-1. "Snow" is the third straight track from "Stadium Arcadium" to ring the bell................" because it is from official billboard bullettin.

Hello, me again. The above two articles seem to relate to the same subject (a Robert Johnson song). I do not know how to go about properly effecting a 'merge'. Can you oblige, or help me ? Thanks, again.

Derek R Bullamore 15:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The "speculation" about Kim English is hardly speculation - the article in which she made her remarks is out there for all to see. Please don't let your being a fan of English blind you to her homophobia. It's a fact, it's newsworthy and it deserves to be on her page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pauleky (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

You probably want to report this at Wikipedia:Checkuser.--Isotope23 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I gave you the wrong link though, sorry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is the right one.--Isotope23 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bananarama 12 Inches.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The image I uploaded was replaced by a newer pic from a different editor, so I suppose mine isn't needed anymore. - eo 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi eo, I was wondering if you could update the Hot Dance Club Play position on the Play with Fire (song) article? I last updated it when billboard.biz could be accessed for free; the song could have risen since then, but it hasn't appeared on the top twenty-five and for some reason it isn't listed on Duff's chart history page. I don't want there to be an inaccurate out-of-date chart position on the article. If you can't access the info or don't want to for whatever reason, I won't mind. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I also thought the .com search might only list the top twenty, but on Ari Gold's it lists a single that peaked even lower than "Play with Fire"...I don't get it :(. I guess it might take a while for the positions on that chart to be updated to the individual chart history pages. But your guess is as good as mine! Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your contribution to the Richard Marx single article originally titled "Hold On to the Nights". Please note that I carefully named the article according to Wikipedia's guidelines: WP:ALBUM#Naming and WP:MUSTARD which states "Capitalize only those prepositions that are five or more letters long (e.g., through), are the first or last word of the title, or are part of a two-word phrasal verb (e.g., "Walk On")". Hence this article's title which is "Hold On ..." could retain the capitalization for the word "on". Do you think this should be reverted back to the original title? I had updated a few other links to this (non-existant at the time) article page, which may or may not be pointing to redirects now. Z00ropean 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dear or Alive band.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ericorbit. I notice that you have argued to include the horse's death on the "Deaths in 2007" article. I had earlier deleted the entry since the guidelines noted at the top of the page (i.e., "Review Wikipedia notability guidelines before adding a listing") specifically state that it is refering to "Notability (people)." Despite what's been on the page in the past, this guideline tells me that the Deaths in 2007 article is for people, not animals (however notable). I suggest Wikipedia create a separate article for notable animal deaths, and not just for racehorses. I am interested in whether you agree or not with this interpretation of the guidelines. I think the horse death should not be on the article, but I think we need some consensus. Que-Can 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the links to the Myspace page and official website?

And are you a Wikipedia moderator or just another user? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harican (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC).