User talk:Littlealien182/Archive2

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3

Silly me!

Yes, you're right about grunge being the dominant nature and I must've missed that part of his rv. But could you please change back the line breaks to commas? The current consensus is for commas in short lists in infoboxes and Nirvana has always had commas in its infobox. Thank you again for pointing out the genre error though :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, never mind, just noticed you're sleeping. I'll do it for you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks for your post. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana

Because grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock is not necessary. Punk, alternative, and heavy metal are really big rock subgenres, so editors have typically listed the overrarching subgenre in addition to the more specific ones without listing rock. And while if you want to get specific you'd definitely tell the average person that Nirvana is a grunge band, more importantly they are one of the major artists in the alternative rock genre, and its best-known and influential. Further, Nirvana were a rather atypical grunge band; by the time of Nevermind they were trying to avoid the Sub Pop sound (which they went full-on for on Bleach) and drew influence from more straight ahead alt-rock bands like R.E.M., the Pixies, and Dinosaur Jr. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun fact: if you read articles about Nirvana's breakthrough success around late 1991/early 1992, they talk about the group's impact in regards to alternative rock as a whole. It's once Pearl Jam and the rest start selling later in 1992 that the coverage narrows to the Seattle grunge scene, since it was seen as "the next big thing". WesleyDodds (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you for resolving the issue quickly and civilly. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 06:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lady Danville

No worries. I keep an eye on American musical groups, as I spent ages re-categorising everything in there about a year ago, so I try and keep it as empty as possible now! Nouse4aname (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're Ever So Inviting

Thanks ;) I Had to edit lots of pages today with the same "problem". --Kmaster (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Underoath GA review

You should help me in the Underoath GA review. Thanks for your comments. – Jerry^teps 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Official Green Day Fan Site - www.GreenDay.net - GREEN DAY wikipedia page

Thought maybe you could help...

My name is Brian Gray, I am the webmaster for the Official Green Day Fan Site at www.GreenDay dot net (apparently the URL is blacklisted.)

I have run the site for the band for almost 10 years, and they constantly keep in communication with updates, journals, and family pictures.. I had posted a link to our site on EXTERNAL LINKS in the past, but some jokesters repeatedly took it down saying "no fan sites."

GreenDay dot net is the OFFICIAL FAN SITE, with constant updates from the 3 band members themselves and their familys, to ban the site is ridiculous. Now I find out the entire URL is blacklisted and I can't even type it in this letter. Can someone help?

thanks in advance

Brian Gray www.GreenDay dot net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.114.121 (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'm sorry that you're experiencing so much frustration. From what I know, it is acceptable under wikipedia policy to add official fan sites to a band's article. Here are a few things that you can do to ensure that your edits are not removed.

1. Add an edit summary with a link to the WP:MUSTARD page. Specifically, to the external links section.
2. Discuss the nature of your changes and the reasons for them on the article talk page. This will give you a reference point to refer to in the event that people revert your edits.
3. Create a user account and make all of your edits from this account. This will help you establish credibility and will prevent your edits from showing up on the warning page of external editing programs. Other editors may think your edits are spam, since they are coming from an unregistered source. Creating an account, however, is not necessary, but only a recommendation in order to avoid reverts that are caused by a misunderstanding of the nature of your edits.
4. Also, sign your comments with "~~~~" so that people know who you are and the exact time of your post. It helps other users understand the chronological sequence of a conversation or argument. This is especially useful for conversations that take place between multiple user's talk pages.

Let me know if this helps. I am willing to help you further if it does not. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian music debate

Hey, hope you're doing well. I invite you to participate in a Christian music debate that I've started. I did it to keep the whole thing in one place, because it's starting to span across several band articles. Thanks. — ^FatalError 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Day

The box was a mistake. As for the rest, see the talk page & complain to JeremyMcCracken, not to me. He's the one holding up aggressive use of WP:V. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That editor is angry with me because I responded to a third opinion request at Talk:Custom car and objected to his version of the article, citing concerns with verifiability and original research. They edited Green Day to make a point (and promptly sent me a talk page post showing it to me); I reverted it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to leave it, given some notion of what is or isn't OK. And "objected to his version of the article"? What he said was

"Not cited yet == not cited. WP:V has a quote from Wikipedia founder Jim Wales about this: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (emphasis his)

And he expressly preferred this to this. I'm perfectly willing to have the custom car page reduced to this, provided every other unverfied & uncited claim elsewhere is also removed. And that is the point I'm trying to make. Judge equally, or leave it alone.

As for archiving, you really don't have any idea, do you? I tend to keep what I find useful. This isn't. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(That above quote is a reply, btw, not my original post) I don't know that's there's anything to be done, just wanted you to know what that edit was about. I'll open a thread at AN/I if I see any more like it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted a thread at WP:AN/I; hopefully they'll take a break and cool down a little. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue I was a bit testy with you; my apologies. It wasn't the best choice of words. IMO, "uncited" leaves a lot of open ground. So does "aggressively removed". (Compare the linked versions of custom car.) On "reply, btw, not my original post", I invite clarification of how it matters. It's that point precisely I don't get: is deletion of uncited in bounds, or not? It appears to depend on who's deleting. As for deleting criticism, we can disagree if you like; it's read & responded to, so I don't see a particular need to archive it. And I don't expect too many visitors to your talk to care. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New Found Glory

You recently removed some references from the NFG article. I added the references several days ago, but another user than vandalised the page in order to use the references to backup a differing viewpoint (which the references did not support). I've reintroduced the sources to back up the original claim. I've explained this in a little more detail on the article's talk page.Aurum ore (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense. However, I think you should consider removing the fourth reference. Although it is a third-party source, it is hardly reliable, since it is written by an amateur reviewer. However, the other three sources look good and seem to support your "emo" claim. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the fourth reference because I had seen the site referenced in some other articles (although that doesn't necessarily mean I should've followed their example). I'm inquiring about its reliability at WP:PUNK, and if the consensus is against it, I'll gladly remove it. Also, thank you for reverting that last edit. Aurum ore (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to wait until I got a response from WP:PUNK, but it looks like their talk page isn't frequented all that often, and I'm not sure there's really a need for more than three references anyway, so go ahead. Aurum ore (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Norma Jean

As near as I can tell, that particular part of the MOS is currently still under debate. However, I did also reformat the dates, as they were incorrect (ie. June 9th instead of June 9). If you like, you can go and un-wikilink the dates, though. GlassCobra 02:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just wondering. I thought that the use of wikilinks for dates was discouraged, but if it's still accepted by other editors, then that's fine by me. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

U2 refs

I noticed you combined the two references --for the 140 million records sales claim-- into one footnote. Would you object to separating them back into two, individual references? It would make this claim seem more plausible and also allow both references to be used individually in the future. What do you think? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My strong preference is for the 1 footnote version. It’s as one would expect to see in a book (have you ever seen a book with multiple footnotes?), it looks better, all the info is there (indeed some browsers will highlight it in the reference column), and it *does* allow both references to be used individually. As for making it seem more plausible, it *might* boost the *appearance* of credibility for readers who judge credibility by the number of footnotes appearing in text. However, I think this is a fairly marginal benefit – if a benefit of all – the best way to check credibility is for people to check the sources themselves.

In actual fact, in an ideal situation we wouldn’t need to have any cites in the lead, as a lead is merely meant to represent in summary what is in the body. Perhaps we thus need to weave that info – and it’s references – into the main body. Then we could consider removing the cites from the lead altogether. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good to me. I was just wondering if you had a specific reason for combining the two references. For future use, how do you use the two individual references later in the article? Do you have to use them separately, so that they appear as a new reference in the ref-list? Or is there a way to re-use the combined reference? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Church disambig

I made that edit after merging Ecclesia (church) into Christian Church. There isn't as much difference between the two terms as you think. You can leave Ecclesia on the disambig page if you wish, but it's just a redirect to Christian Church now. --JaGa^talk 06:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Church music

Actually I added that link to the dab page because I needed it to disambiguate a link using AWB. The way I figure it, if someone has linked to it once, other probably have and will in the future and a reader should be able to navigate to the correct page. Just my thoughts. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add links to AWB manually, even if they don't appear on the actual disambiguation page. Also, I don't agree with your rationale for adding the link. There are 1,000s of links to the Church disambiguation page, and just because one user made an incorrect link, that doesn't justify you adding it the page. If you find that this is a recurring mistake, then you may have more of a case. But if we use your rationale, all of the commonly linked disambiguation pages would be filled with countless articles. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 09:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. On another note, do you think you could take a look at Church body? The definition listed on the dab page would fit nicely with several of the articles I've been trying to fix, but an editor moved it to Local church and substantially changed the meaning to my own perception. The editor also did a cut and paste move somewhere in the middle of it which I have marked for repair. The hybrid article as it stands gave me a headache trying to figure out whether to split it back up or what to do with it. I think someone more experienced in the subject than I would probably make a better job of it. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I'm a medical student and I have a huge exam on Monday. I can help you sort out this mess next week. Thank you for your cooperative response. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All part of being a member of the Harmonious editing club. I see some other editors are also on to this particular editor's work so between us all we should be able to straighten it all out. I'll be logging off for Shabbos momentarily though. Best wishes for a good grade on your exam! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

UC endowments

the issue has been opened for discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Endowments_and_the_University_of_California_system. Please make an argument there if you are interested. Amerique^dialectics 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Phi History

I would love to help you with the history portion of the Pi Kappa Phi page. I'm still learning how wikipedia formating works but I'm not bad at writing. Just let me know how I can help. Tigermike83 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's not a problem. I can help with the formatting issues and we can split up the writing. Do you have a copy of the Pi Kappa Phi history book, The Brotherhood? — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre war

i did not mean specifically Green Day. all band pages used to have the genre listing in the info box, now NO band has a genre listing. --Greenday21 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Yeah, I know. The genre war that I'm referring to, is the one that is currently underway about whether we should restore the genre field to the musician infobox. Use the link I provided you, to voice your opinion. We need all the dissenters we can get. Thanks. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox genres

Aside from the fact that the guidelines are currently being revised, the edits from those anonymous IPs look suspicious. Why would anonymous IP with little to no editing experience know about the infobox guidelines? I'm busy doing other things at the moment, but you should probably report these edits to an admin. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get on it. Once again, thanks for your help. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 01:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be, but don't assume too much unless it seems pretty clear. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends. Given that the editor keeps changing IPs, blocks might not be effective. Page protection is a radical option, but it's nowhere near that point, in my opinion; we're just dealing with someone who's being an inconvenience. Best advice is to keep reporting the IPs and leaving yalk page messages, and hopefully he'll get bored and find something better to do. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

PR

I will be glad to take a look at it in the next day or two. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The new table looks nice - I think for accessibility issues the asterisks etc. should stay in as well as the colors (so if someone is blind they can still get the asterisk information). See WP:ACCESS. I know some tables use a light background color, but I like the border color you are using. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Pbroks13

Hello, Littlealien182. You have new messages at Pbroks13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Star Shield of Pi Kappa Phi.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image has been replaced with an SVG format. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Editor Review

All fixed :). Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

SP

With newer information, the best approach is to wait a bit and see how it fits into the bigger picture so we can work it into the article most effectively. Once the tour's finished, we can probably say something about it, but it's not necessary for the moment; bands tour all the time. In band articles, there's always a problem with people adding new news but focusing too much on it in comparison to the rest of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: I think you deserve this...

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Certifications and sales (and the "difference" between the two)

I understand the difference between the two. I would disagree however that a certification is a "low-ball" estimate, in fact I believe certifications to be an inflation by record labels of what is really sold. Moreover, record labels have to apply for certification (at least they do with the RIAA), so ultimately there are many albums out there which may have sold millions but have never been certified. The figures in that discography then are an estimate that some editor made by "adding up" a bunch of certifications already listed, correct? How accurate is that? - eo (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the RIAA process and I don't have an opinion on it at all, really. The problem I do have is when sales figures are placed into an article and there is no real way to verify them. I brought up the RIAA process because it looks to me as if the sales figures in this article were somehow derived from the certifications that are listed. A more accurate source for sales figures (at least in certain countries) is Nielsen Soundscan, although this only goes back to the 1990s. Basically, in my opinion, listing an album's (or single's) certification is just fine; nothing wrong with it at all... it gives the reader a general idea of how successful a release was (i.e. 5x platinum as opposed to gold) and certs are easily sourced and there are websites with databases full of the information. However, when specific numbers are thrown into a discography page I believe things get messy and extremely questionable. - eo (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok you responded again while I was responding so I'll just scrub what I was gonna say and say thanks for the removal. Certifications are great and wonderful and blah blah and they can be sourced properly but I think substituting a sales figure citation with a "+" is not encyclopedic and a bad idea overall. But anyhoo thanks to you as well for understanding. - eo (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You wanted some help...

Hi Littlealien, you wanted me to revert the edits done by Blue.charmander, because you already reverted 3 edits on that article, right? If that was it, it's all good now. It seems that Master of Puppets took care of it. Thanks for asking me to help though. — BassGuitarist182 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had 2 reverts and I didn't want a third one. But it's not a problem anymore. The editor has been blocked and the original information has been restored. Thank you for your response. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 22:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)