User talk:Ericorbit/Archive15

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 could use some help here.Kww (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you recognize that "just a hair" was intended to convey that I didn't think you were objectively wrong, just that we have different judgement.Kww (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed one thing: he was edit warring a couple of days ago, but he screwed up. He was trying to put the Brazilian chart back in, but kept accidentally including a bit of vandalism about cunnilingus. That's where his previous level 3 came from.Kww (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just thought that background knowledge never hurts.Kww (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talkning about, how is adding UWC charts vandilism User:Hometown Kid|Hometown Kid]] (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well look how much other articles have that chart, and plus they're added by other uses and you're only stocking me. By the the UWC ain't no additional component chart, and it's not fake either, you just don't want it there.Hometown Kid (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH HOMETOWN KID! NO ONE MADE YOU IN CHARGE! STOP TAKING CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING! AND STOP DELETING CHARTS THAT BELONG!

Yeahboyyy (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get all the wikipedia users to send you some complaints about you threatning me that I'll be blocked from editing, you're not the boss around, just like the one by Yeahboyy. You watch yourself, WATCH YOURSELF AND STOP SENDING ME STUPID MESSAGES!Hometown Kid (talk) 8:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This was not vandalizism, I can't believe you would even think that. In my original edit, I did cite my source of Richard Marx having 7 (not 3) number one hits. But you still dismissed it. Please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmyright (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice about the album title pages. I didn't really start working with the album pages until I noticed citation problems and inconsistencies within those articles. Again thanks for the advice. I really do appreciate it. Oh and good luck getting the editor above to cite his edits, because he refuses to do so. Have a good weekend... --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Same editor, same problem on Paramore discography.Kww (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

LiveJournal isn't a reliable source... but All Access is and that was the source for that post. --Winger84 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I need your help since you helped me clear up the Sugarland thing a while back. Even though there was opposition, I moved BlackHawk (band) to BlackHawk because they're the ONLY use of that exact spelling. Now, I want to move the album category from Category:BlackHawk (band) albums to Category:BlackHawk albums but I'm being met with opposition. Do you see any purpose at all in having the "(band)" modifier at the end when they're the ONLY FREAKING ARTICLE that uses the spelling BlackHawk and there's a link to the disambiguation page? I see no reason for that ugly "(band)" at the end. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's been six days now. The CfD was closed as "keep as is". WTF?! Seriously. I say move it anyway, the closure was improper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Even though I've been warned not to, I'm still tempted to boldly switch out the category anyway. One point I didn't make clear earlier is that, regardless of what the band's page is, I think the (band) at the end is redundant. Check the category talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I had considered DRV, but was suggested not to do that. Despite the opposition and a warning not to do it, I'm tempted just to boldly fix the problem myself by creating a new category, then emptying out the old one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, my boldness got reverted. I'm taking an informal vote here to decide whether or not the page should've been moved against consensus. The admin who closed the CFD said that if I can get a consensus for my page move, then he'll fix the category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Webkinzman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and see if you concur with Ward3001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that blocks have become necessary? He is constantly reinserting tracks as "confirmed", complete with a reference that doesn't mention the tracks he added. Ward3001 has primarily been the one reverting him, and has gone up to final warning level, but no blocks have actually been applied.Kww (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He knows it's inappropriate because he reverted a similar edit by another editor here, but continued the same practice repeatedly himself. The warnings get stale because he waits a while between incidents, so I'm not sure that an AIV report would help. It seems to be the primary reason he set up the account, although he has made a few edits elsewhere. He also vandalized the same article's talk page here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Blueboy96.Kww (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my reasons are obvious. Or are you too "involved"?Kww (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ilikestella#Hot_100_Brazil Kww (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:S'Express Original Soundtrack.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not fond of the guy myself, but blocking him for serial copyright violation isn't something I would have done. He uploaded a series of "Got Milk?" ads, and included them in the "Got Milk?" article. While he didn't fill out the forms properly, the actual content was a gray enough line that I asked for confirmation of my deletion of the material on the NFCC talk page.—Kww(talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could be that my own personal barbecue has me a bit on the hesitant sides these days.—Kww(talk) 11:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

...But I am having problems editing the KylieX2008 article.
1. I understand that the United Arab Emirates are in the SW Asian Peninsula but this doesn't make it an "Asian" country. On most tour itineraries, it is listed as the Middle East so I do not understand why certain editors are grouping them into "Asia".
2. On Minogue's website (along with the tour's promoters), the tour leg is acknowledged as "Australasian" leg of the tour source yet certain editors continue to call the leg "Oceania". If both Minogue's team and tour promoters are acknowledging the leg as Australasia, I do not understand why they continue to change it. Probably not important but its completely frustrating. Alkclark (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, walking on hot coals for a week has me tiptoeing in places I normally would boldly stride. Could you look at the edit history of I Hate This Part‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and my discussion with Getluv‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and weigh in as to my appropriate next step? I don't feel like pushing too hard, because I'll bet this thing can have an article in a week or two, but I hate to leave Getluv with the impression that he was justified in undoing the redirect.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eric. It is proper to use this page like her other singles. Its disambiguated with "Knowles". Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I join you the message I sent to JD554 as you shared the same point of view with him.... here's what I wrote him: I just found out two sentences from Sioux, confirming that she doesn't want to appear on a picture smiling. This proves that this 86'pic is not welcome. In the SATB bio, she talked about her image "For Tv Performances, and stage shows, promotion...it was important for there to be nothing happy or jolly going on"(SATB bio by M.Paytress Page 71). In 1988, she stated : "I don't see the point of smiling in front of a camera. I don't like to be portrayed. I only find interesting the videos we make for our singles 'cse they have another dimension". (Sioux'Interview in Les inrockuptibles, oct 1988). So, this confirms that this picture shows her at her disavantage. Plus, it was taken not in concert but in private circumstances outside a hotel by a fan paparazzi. That's why wikipedia users prefer to chose pictures taken in concerts or during promo events. I talked about this issue on the Siouxsie'forum and everyone agrees with me. If I look at the other wiki pages, I saw that no one put awful Depeche mode pictures from 1984 when Martin gore wore SM bondage outfits topless for instance. There's also no pic of Robert Smith with a crucifix proving no matter what he stated about not being goth, he wore a goth look in 1984 in concert. For killing joke, a lot of pictures are archived on wikipedia and yet, the users found more relevant to put only one picture 'cse bio is about music. It's obvious that some users want to put some bands on a pedestal and others down. For this issue, members of Siouxsie'forums are on my sides. I can ask them to become users of the Siouxsie page if necessary.Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 11 september 2008 (UTC)

Response at User talk:JD554 - eo (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're invited to read the SATB Discussion page Carliertwo (talk) 18:58, 14 september 2008 (UTC)

You can also read the posts I wrote to the 2 other users here [[1]] EDIT Unsurprisingly, yesterday, user jd554 asked his friend/brain double wesley dodds by private message to take part at the discussion. You'll understand why I consider jd554 like that when you'll read my last posts on the SATB discussion. [[2]] I have to add that I was unfair about a comment I put about you yesterday as I don't put you at all in the same category as some cure fans. Also thank you for correcting my grammar as you may have guessed that English is not my first language. I respect your point of view about the issue as contrary to some people, you're not partial. Carliertwo (talk)

Thanks. I tried to move it but someone moved I Am...(Beyonce Knowles album) to I Am...Sasha Fierce. Couldn't move back so the redirect was the only way I knew to do it. Alkclark (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this in your capable hands. Our friend Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now downloaded yet another fanart cover at Image:Hername.jpg. The full source is http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc214/pussycatdollsbase/Promoshoots%20e%20Covers/Covers/HerNameIsNicole9.jpg, which is referenced at http://albunsdowloads.blogspot.com/2008/06/nicole-scherzinger-her-name-is-nicole.html. Notice that the actual album, described in Her Name is Nicole, has never been released, hence there is no official cover art.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tis User is back to vandalising Madonna sales data again. I have reversed some. Look at Madonna Singles Discography Eight88 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get this User temp blocked. He/she is consistanty removing referenced detail with unqualified detail. Refer Mariah Carey Discography for his latest reversal Eight88 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your input is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Deprecated_charts.—Kww(talk) 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the present article. I looks like {Copyvio} to me - although I do not know where from. It is full of {POV} as well. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stewart LouisXIV.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ericorbit, I came across your username in the history of Cyndi Lauper discography and on the talk page of Huney dani. I have just left a message for Huney dani about what is classed as a "studio album" in discographies, but I wanted to ask whether you think my reasoning is correct - you seem quite familiar with discographies, and I hadn't edited one until yesterday! Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had to warn him again about adding that silly chart. The two most annoying things about music articles: Genre Warriors and fake charts. — Realist² 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me enforce policy on Womanizer (song). I'm getting a little bogged down alone. — Realist² 20:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just expressing my opinion that Headstrong neiva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at the end of her rope. Myriad warnings, numerous "final" warnings, and no detectable change in behaviour.—Kww(talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite a final warning on Nov. 2, she readded the Brazil Hot 100 on the 4th. She's already had a one-day block and a two-day block. I think it's time for a week.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the second final warning in two days (and the sixth "final" warning since her last block) will really do anything?—Kww(talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

• Image:Verve Unmixed 2.jpg
• Image:Verve Unmixed 3.jpg
• Image:Verve Unmixed.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• why are you insisting on my TRUE edits? --Triancula (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• if you look CAREFULLY, there are 3 DIFFERENT charts. one of them is turkey top 20 chart full of foreign names like rihanna, madonna etc. one of them is turkish top 20 charts which is consisted of with turkish songs and turkish artists like tarkan, kenan doğulu, sezen aksu. and the last one is turkish rock, i hope you get it. they are NOT SAME. totally different from each other. please look carefully and do not remove the third one from that list! --Triancula (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• (((: i'm glad that we solved the problem in a good way and you know what, it's so normal! i don't know what time is it in there, in where you live, but in here it's really dark and really late, so it's so normal, don't blame yourself man! :) --Triancula (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• as i wrote down to your last.fm page, i'm sorry for my informal sentences. --Triancula (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that blog sources aren't reliable, but that's the only place where the chart is published. The domain Romanian Top 100 stoped publishing it in June, although it's still broadcasted on romanian radio. Those top 10 positions are taken from the Euro 200 page, which I know it's not a reliable chart, but those positions are the real ones. Alecsdaniel (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've raised this concern with another admin too, but thought I would tell you too. The critical reception section is terrible and is basically huge copy and paste jobs. The whole thing needs scrubbing. — Realist² 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about adding hot100brasil.com, los40principales.com.ar, interproducciones.com.ar, top100argentina.blogspot.com, top100chile.blogspot.com, and www.mediatraffic.de to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Or maybe to User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. I'd go for it myself, but only admins can fiddle with the blacklists. —Kww(talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I started with a request to Xlinkbot. It only prevents additions from anonymous or new editors, but will give us a feel for whether automated help reduces the problem or simply creates a shitstorm.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A little excerpt from the RIAA certification article: "the audit is conducted against unit shipments (most often an artist's royalty statement is used), which includes albums sold directly to retailers and one-stops, direct to consumer sales (music clubs and mail order) and other outlets. Shipments that could potentially be returned to the label can not be counted." (emphasis added) My point is this; when an individual record achieves a certification, it is an indication of how many non-refundable albums have been sold by the record label (or "shipped" by the record label) and, consequently, the number of royalties received by the artist. Only non-refundable records are counted in this total, so it doesn't matter if the retailers sell all of the records that are shipped to them. What matters is that the records have already been sold by the label. Also, record stores rarely over-stock any individual album by an amount that would lead to a significant descrepency in retail-record-sales and shipment amounts (i.e. a margin that would render the certifications to be a grossly inaccurate measure of how many albums have been sold). If anything, the certification amounts are low-ball estimates of the total record sales. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There may be albums that are worthy of an RIAA certification that do not have one --but this is hardly relevant to the point I am arguing for. You are saying that certifications are inflated values. Why? The record labels have sold non-refundable albums. How are these not real sales. As I mentioned already, the band receives a royalty for the shipped album because it has already been sold to the retailer. Also, how do you explain albums that have shipped 5.2 million, 5.3 million, 5.4 million, etc. records, but only have a 5x platinum certification? I think it would be a stretch to say that an album that has gone 5x platinum, has sold less than 5 million copies. It seems like you have a problem with the RIAA certification process. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But that is precisely my point. They are not "specific numbers." They are loose, safe approximations. That is why there are multiple zeros in each figure and a little "+" next to the individual numbers. This isn't sloppy and it doesn't require an additional reference. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the column has been removed. I think this may be a better option for now. Thank you for replying promptly and civilly. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 21:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on From A Planet Called Harlem, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because From A Planet Called Harlem is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting From A Planet Called Harlem, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me; all I did was redirect it a long time ago. Delete! - eo (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You've added the US chart position for The Sound of The Smiths to the above article. However, the existing citation at the top of the column does not show this. Can you please add a reference to the chart position? Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation does display the #98 U.S. peak. - eo (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad: that wasn't there earlier this morning when I looked. I should have re-checked. Sorry, --JD554 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ericorbit, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you help keep an eye on 2008 in music for me? My UWC eradication campaign hasn't met with much resistance, but anons keep adding it back into that article. Once the main UWC article was removed, people began keeping a live copy of the UWC as a portion of that article. Even if the UWC was a good chart, I don't think that would be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The case of Siouxsie's influence on Santogold is patent but yesterday, you erased my contribution without contacting me first, exactly like Wesley Dodds did when I made the filiation between the Banshees and trip-hop acts. It's rich that a person like me who always adds relevant information, found by myself and not picked up lazily in biographies like Dodds always does, are always annoyed. Note that you found relevant to let online a picture of Sioux with her face bloated by cortisone in 1986 after months of treatment due to a broken leg and at the opposite, you didn't want to put the patent case of influence of "Red Light" on "My Superman" with the pretext that Pitchfork is not a good source. In case you don't know it, the reviewers of pitchfork are judged on the net as the best in terms of indie rock. Here the journalist named Sioux for "My Superman" and with the links I put, readers of wikipedia could have been able to make the filiation between the 2 songs. (as the music and the arrangements are almost the same). The fact that you erased that, was in that case not justified. Hopefully, I found today via google an interview of Santogold that mentions the influence. Obviously, I bet if I hadn't found it, you would have made me trouble.as always.Carliertwo (talk) 19:49, 26 november 2008 (UTC)

You wrote. "And as far as the Siouxsie photo goes, you know very well why that image stayed in the article and whatever backstory there is behind it (cortisone, broken leg, etc.) is pure speculation and certainly doesn't make the picture ugly or inappropriate".

I disagree strongly. It's not speculation as it's mentionned in the omnibus press biography "Entranced" that Sioux had passed months under cortisone after that accident in late 1985 and that she had a lot of difficulties to recover her shape during the first part of 1986. I will give you the correct part of the book later in a few days after researching. So to me, it's not a consensus ; it's a partial consensus. Indeed, You know very well that wesley Doods tried x number of times to revert several of my relevant informations and that he's a friend of JD554. Via the talk system, JD554 sent him a lot of messages for their wiki indie rock project and once for the Sioux'1986 picture ! Plus, as you know it, Jd554 added zero contributions apart reverting from time to time mistakes of... grammar!

Regarding your explanation about what I wrote yesterday, I understand and share now your point of view. Indeed, I should have been more balanced as Pitchfork did not mention "Red Light". So, instead of asserting something which was not so obvious in the link, I should have been more cautious or found another source to back up the information. That's what I finally did. So, I retrospectively thank you for your contribution. It helped me on that subject to give more credits to this information.Carliertwo (talk) 18:36, 26 november 2008 (UTC)

How certain are you about this? I've been leaving the AmericaTop100 links alone.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look at this?—Kww(talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It got resolved and archived before you got your messages. Another chronic Brazil Hot 100 warrior needed blocked. If you feel like putting in a "I like this idea" note here, I'd appreciate it. I've been removing crappy charts from over a hundred articles a day, but people are adding 99. I need a bot to help.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)