User talk:CIS/Archive 4

Orphaned non-free media (File:Burn Burn cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Burn Burn cover.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) 05:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AYD Cover.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:AYD Cover.gif. 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) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Leno
I found the following in the WP:MOS regarding date ranges:

"The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes."

- MOSDATE

Am I missing something? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

EB salutes you
Congratulations on achieving a 100% consensus move of 2000s (decade). Un sch  ool  07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! But my god who decided "2000–2009" was a good idea anyway? Haha&mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 08:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady Peace
Yes I am a big fan of OLP and whenever I find some new tidbits I'll add 'em. (The rest of their singles need articles!). I may sign up to that ClumsyMonkey forum someday. See you around! Publichall (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am new to WikiPedia, but I am a fan of OLP as well and I really believe the information that an independent magazine released the second song off the new album ("Paper Moon") should be included in the Wikipedia page. Why should things like appearances on Jay Leno count and this not? Please help me understand why you edited my page revision for OLP new album. Deearreeem (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady Peace additions
Hey, I just created an article for "Hope (Our Lady Peace song)". See if there's anything you can add or improve on. It would be appreciated. Publichall (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. After a two week vacation, I will slowly be creating articles for the rest of OLP's singles. (I have cover art for most of them). I just need more sources! See you around. Publichall (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A small piece of info for Burn Burn, There's a new video on Youtube for OLP's studio sessions for "Paper Moon". The title of a song "What Kind of Life" shows up on a track listing. Can you confirm if it's an outtake and if so you can add it to the article. Publichall (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christmas and holiday season
I'm confused by your creation of this category. If you persist in adding other winter holidays, it is merely a redundant clone of Category:Winter holidays and if you do not, then it is a clone of Category:Christmas. What are you trying to do? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the category for deletion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U
Greetings, CIS. The editor persistently removing the valid "globalize" template from Bumper (automobile) is refusing to coöperate in accord with consensus — on this and other articles. Would you please take a look here and co-certify (since you and I are the two editors who have tried to engage Wdl1961 on this matter) if you feel it appropriate to do so? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right; he hasn't stopped See here. I've put in for another 3O and filed on AIV as well. *sigh* —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA
You may want to consider withdrawing your candidacy as it appears unlikely that it will end successfully (even this soon after you started it). Please let me know if you wish to withdraw. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Retracted. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA post
You retracted before I could save my comment, so I'll say it here: I think you have the potential to become an admin in the not-too-distant future, but you should spend some time participating in visible admin-related things so that people have a better basis to evaluate you. Regards, and don't be discouraged. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm sorry your RfA turned out the way it did, I hope things go well in the future. :)  The left orium  22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded (is that even a word?). Can't believe people judge you for something that happened in 2006. Next time at least leave the RfA open for long enough for the supporters to chime in ;) I'm sure you'll do better with a little admin-related experience next time. Jafeluv (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page
Yes, I'd still like to be an admin. I'm not sure my RfA would have passed, but I felt withdrawing was the right thing to do when there were so many opposing votes. Cheers (and thanks for your kind words),  The left orium  22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted
Re:. Don't feel unwanted. I would not have supported your adminship either at this point, but it's nothing to do with 3 year old diffs, and nothing you can't change. I most certainly value your contributions, and admire the fact that you've turned things around. Yes, there were some opposes that could be construed as "never", but if you look through it again, you'll find some useful advice. Address those, and it's possible that a future RFA might pass. However, more importantly, even if it doesn't, it doesn't really matter. Think of it this way:

You're already essentially an admin. If you want to block a vandal, you can. If you want to un/protect a page, you can. If you want to edit a protected page you can. etc. If your judgement is sound, your requests will be handled pretty quickly. It's easier with the actual tools, and it's nice to help out, and it's nice to feel trusted, but being a mere mortal has its advantages. No one comes onto our talk pages screaming "mere mortal abuse"!

Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know about your Rfa until I saw a post elsewhere. Sorry it went so poorly; I think you're really come a very long way from when you began, although I don't know that I would necessarily feel comfortable supporting you for admin at this time. It would help if you spent a little more time with policy discussions and noticeboard discussions, although if you aren't interested in those, you aren't. The advice that Floquenbeam gives you above is good advice. Please don't let it get you down too much: and remember you can always ping me if you need anything. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Outer Limits
Hi! I saw you split the article on The Outer Limits into two pages and turned the base name into a disambiguation page. If you have a chance, please take a look at Disambiguation. It's generally considered good form for an editor creating a new disambiguation page to fix the ambiguous links created by the change. In this case, there were about 750 mainspace links created; right now, that's about three times more ambiguous links than to any other page on Wikipedia. It's probably too much for you to do on your own, but please fix some of them if you can. Thanks! Dekimasu よ! 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham DOB link
Hi there,

I see you RV'd putting the date back into a link. I don't want to get into an edit war about this. While obviously his DOB is part of his notability (i.e. because of longevity), it is not the sole reason for it: the fact that he was "the last of Kitchener's men" etc is also relevant, even had he not been the oldest; and probably the general public's wide knowledge of him-- even if scant-- would establish notability (via numerous mentions in secondary sources, of course).

In any case, I believe that the templates will do the necessary additions via birthdate and deathdate or something? (I don't often edit biographies beyond minor copy edits.) That would seem more satisfactory to me; adding the appropriate reference into that year without making it stick out like a sore thumb in the article itself. It seems to me you are kinda arguing in reverse; you don't particularly want Allingham to have a link to 1896 but to have 1896 to have a link to Allingham.

I reverted this change as part of general subbing to put dates into WP:DATE. As you see from my clearl yedit note on the first revert edit (by saying what the previous edit was and the reason for the revert), I am not trying to sneak this through unnoticed, but I was doing a general change for consistency in dates (and hyphens) and this was one of them. I dithered whether to note it as a revert as part of the summary (or make it a separate edit) but, perhaps wrongly, decided against it– too late now.

It may be better to copy this to the article's talk page and do reply there, but I wanted to explain my reasoning a little more fully to you personally first before cluttering article talk, as it may be something we can easily resolve without involving others (don't want it to turn into a general argument about date linking, just this date specifically).

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Copying to article talk since an anoymous IP 142.68.97.135 just registered and reverted the change. Suggest continue to discuss there.) SimonTrew (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping
In response to this, I've made edits both here and here. Frank |  talk  15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Natalia Estemirova
I did check the sources, and I only found one date (1958) in one of the two sources provided, the second source did not provide her DOB. Please check the sources and see if you can identify where the other two dates are, otherwise I think 1958 seems the be the real date. Thanks, - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's best to leave the dates as disputed until a definitive source arises. Thanks for the heads up. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady Peace
Hey there, I changed back your edit on Our Lady Peace labels. Here's the argument:

While they are all the same parent company, the signings are very different. The band still maintains their signing with Sony Music Canada from their beginnings, this is why Burn Burn is released by Sony Canada, however their US Sony signing is over which was with Columbia Records. In the US, "Sony Music" operates all its labels as frontline labels and therefore there is no "sony music usa" per say, same goes with the other big 3. Also signing with a non-US (and sometimes non-UK) multinational company means that the signing only applies to that territory. So them being signed to "sony music canada" meant that they would have to go seek a signing in the USA, be it with a sony company/affiliate or generally any other company. A US Sony signing, like with Columbia Records, also equates to global distribution through sony music companies and networks in like 100+ countries. This is why its important to distinguish the band's signing with "sony music canada" (whose geographic influence/control is generally limited to canada only), as well as with "columbia records" (which was their US signing and which gave them American & global exposure/release/promotion), and now ILG (move to warner "indie" company since sony in the US was terminated). If you look at other Canadian artists here on wiki actually based out of Canada, or to extend it even further, most non-US and UK artists, you will see that this is how its generally handled in the infobox....i.e. Sony Music (and country) to indicate the signing. Imperatore (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Naveed was released in Canada (by Sony Music Canada) in 1994. Sony Music Canada is licensed to use pretty much any of Sony's big labels, and they chose Epic (probably because they worked with a team at sony canada that maintains a "epic" canadian roster), and it was registered into the epic catalogue (the catalogue number is EPK 00000 etc..) In that year, they didn't manage to convince the big mainstream Sony labels in the US (Epic or Columbia) to sign them just yet, but Sony managed to hook them up with their indie label Relativity. When the band finally signed to "Columbia Records" later in 1997 i believe, the rights to reprint the album passed to columbia and this is why the album was rereleased many years later by Columbia in the USA (having the columbia logo and not epic). Meanwhile the Canadian release, which is the original, is an "epic" catalogue item. WPALBUMS argues that the original label only be used, in which case its sony music (being issued by a company called sony music (country), epic (carries the imprint) and relativity (relativity in the us). Imperatore (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the infobox having "Epic", I am against that. I believe the infobox should only reflect "signings" and not imprints. You see sony music canada is their company, and they choose to smack on epic for various reasons (they need to have it registered in a catalogue somewhere, and they chose epic, or because they worked with the "epic team" versus the columbia team at sony canada). They were never actually signed to "epic records", instead when they went to the states "columbia records" signed them (many years later after the sony indie relativity deal). Sony Canada was just borrowing the label and using it as an imprint. Furthermore, on the issue of Relativity, yes in some sense, they would need to be signed/work out a deal to have their stuff released by them, so yes "Relativity" is a signing and merits a mention in the infobox. On the other hand, epic records has never had any contractual dealings with the band, it was always handled by sony music canada. Furthermore, once the band signed to columbia, sony music canada switched to columbia as an imprint for their canadian releases because now the album is an american import and registered in the columbia catalogue. Imperatore (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is Naveed under Relativity http://www.discogs.com/Our-Lady-Peace-Naveed/release/644661, unfortunately it says "canada" but they probably just mean Canadian band not "canadian item". On the other hand Naveed under Epic seems right (notice distributed by sony music canada) http://www.discogs.com/Our-Lady-Peace-Naveed/release/1788926 . Canadian retailer HMV also as epic :) http://www.hmv.ca/hmvcaweb/en_CA/displayProductDetails.do?sku=991305 . So I think we're good for sources. Also notice Relativity is already mentioned in the body (I didn't put it there).

Again thanks for your time and understanding. Usually people don't take the time to listen/learn the system and I enter into some edit war and then I just back off lol. Imperatore (talk)

Willis Tower
Hi CrazyInSane. This is a response regarding your edit to Willis Tower. Firstly, Jesus and KFC are not renamed landmarks and therefore, are inadequate reasons for why the Willis Tower article should contain "also known as" in its first line. For a renamed landmark, "formerly named", or "formerly known as" are the only appropriate terms. See Rogers Centre, L.F. Wade International Airport and Highland Falls, New York, which can relate more to a renamed landmark than a biblical figure or a fried chicken restaurant. While many people may still refer to these landmarks by their old name, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to address this in the first line. In the Willis Tower article, the public reaction to the renaming is discussed several times throughout the article, but doing so in the first line does not follow Wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to respond on my talk page. -- Anyquestions (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Burn Burn
Hey again, this time I promise to keep it short... I only got a chance to head out to stores and check out the Burn Burn album today. With regards to its labeling, I'd hate to complicate things but it is NOT under the Sony Music label. It's pretty much just distributed by Sony Music Canada through "Coalition Entertainment", their longtime management company. Together with Coalition, they've arranged for a distribution deal with Sony Music Canada, but they act independent of Sony. Also the copyrights, both the (C) and (P) (phonographic copyright), are by "our lady peace inc." licensed exclusively to coaliition entertainment. In more simpler terms, our lady peace owns the masters and all copyright claims to their album Burn Burn and they license the album to coalition, who in turn, enjoy mass distribution because the coalition label together with the band have formed a joint-venture deal with Sony Music Canada.

Conclusion: 1)The label is, at best, Coalition Entertainment ONLY, both for Canada and USA. Our lady peace worked out a deal for distributed by sony music canada (probably aided with their longtime affiliation with the company) and a US deal with warner's indie division for US DISTRIBUTION). Our lady peace together with Coalition will be calling the shots. Sony most likely has zero influence over the album. This is a great example of a now independent band using the mainstream system to best suite their needs, all the while maintaining (near) complete control of the their material.

2) The band is no longer signed to sony music canada, at least not in the tradition sense under a recording contract. Burn Burn's copyright is fully owned by the band ("our lady peace inc.") and the CD has absolutely no trace of sony labeling/branding (same case most likely applies to their US distribution with warner).

Imperatore (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the band completely terminated with Sony (Columbia in NYC and Sony canada) in 2005ish, as a recording contract. Therefore sony music canada should have the same cutoff as columbia, 2005 (best estimate- possibly 06). Also Sony owns the rights to release compilations, and they can do so even in 10 years from now for example, a common practice in the industry, so don't be worried by the 2009 release. Moreover, the 09 release is by Legacy Recordings, the back-catalogue division, and not columbia...so the situation is perfectly conventional. Check out this great link I found under the "for the record..." section, it definetly solves some of our signing issues (and proves we are definitely on the right track :) ). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3494000071.html Imperatore (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I added Columbia to very best:


 * 2009 release definetly issued by the back-catalogue legacy division. I added "columbia" as a second label only because the catalgoue division generally likes to retain the original label of the recordings, they will include the logo as well. So if they grabbed it from the Columbia catalogue, then they might as well stick on the columbia logo along with the legacy logo. However I have not seen this CD in person to confirm that it indeed respects the original label.


 * Generally the back-catalogue divisions of big companies reissue much older recordings from a current & longtime artist, or in the case of a band who leaves the label, their active catalogue becomes dormant and it passes quickly to the catalogue division. This is probably why Legacy was so quick to make a release. (As opposed to their other best of CD "a decade" which was not affiliated with legacy- Columbia was still very much active with the band and what it contained was mostly current material at the time.)

On infobox signings:


 * sony music canada 1994-2006 (or maybe 05?), columbia 1997 (confirmed by link i sent you) - 2006 (or 05 more research needed), coalition 2009-present....it's very dead on I think! I'm not too sure how to handle ILG just yet, I think we'll just have to remove it cuz its not a recording contract but just a distribution contract. Let me sleep on it and I'll address that again. Imperatore (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still here...I did a complete release history for Naveed! Hope this solves some of your confusion. Imperatore (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't wanna go back to square one, but the band signed to sony canada and released naveed, and sony canada used the epic imprint for various possible reasons (see my blabbing on the top). Finally they got an american signing to Columbia in 1997. But Naveed's original labels are "sony music" because it was released by a "sony music (insert country name here)" company (every sony is like that outside of the USA), and they paired it with "epic records" cataloguing/imprinting. So it has two labels, sony music and epic, but the signing is 100% sony music canada who administered the epic imprint, they had nothing to do with Epic Records (a company located in NYC and LA)... The link I posted confirms that the band signed in the US to columbia in 1997 and that they maintained their 1994 sony music canada throughout (notice under record label addresses both NYC and North York are there). Every album is also copyrighted to sony music canada, not columbia. So it was a dual signing. In fact, Celine Dion who has gone on to sign multimillion dollar deals with Columbia and other sony operations (like sony music france for touring)....her most recent album till this day is copyright to sony music canada (in every market), reflecting that the original canadian signing still upholds in even high profile cases.

Bottom line (in my best, expert opinion and evidenced by the link):

sony music canada 1994-2005

columbia 1997-2005

coalition 2009-present

I;m still debating ILG and Relativity...I need to do more research for those but lets leave them for now... Imperatore (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HALLELUJAH I FOUND A SITE DOCUMENTING ALL THE DETAILS, CD COVERS AS WELL. Verifying my Naveed release history from earlier...looks good so far :). http://www.clumsymonkey.net/discog_details.php?item=1    Imperatore (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG I CANT BELIEVE I FOUND THIS SITE. Suddenly I feel like what I've been struggling to make a point with here on wiki for so long...eureka! lol Imperatore (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: England
What what you like to discuss, what is to discuss? I moved it User:Yorkshirian/England. Only the politics and history section really need revamping now. The two other people who just reverted and ran seem to be SNP supporters (one of whom says so on his page and doesn't edit often, only showed up it seems to revert progress on England's article) so I'm not sure at his motives on that one, but I'm not sure the quality of standard of England's article is top priority for them. Anyway I think when this is finished it will be GA status. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is all right to cut the English down. Anything for Berwick.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of films about the RMS Titanic
I have nominated List of films about the RMS Titanic, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of films about the RMS Titanic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Jesus
Sorry for the era confusion in Chronology of Jesus. I rechecked the edits and found that Rossnixon was solely responsible for the mess. He apparently changed "ce" to AD everywhere, even when words began with "ce-", changing "century" to "ADntury", etc. I inadvertently included your edit in my reversion. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the first I ever heard that there was "Controversy over whether Christmas ought to be ADlebrated on December 25 or January 6". I dunno, when do you think it ought to be ADlebrated? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, exactly... adlebration of Christmas usually only occurs July 6, so that claim is purely WP:OR. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, I missed it again! Seriously, I am having too much amusement at that word. It sounds a little like addlepated and a little like inebriated. I think its going to be my new "pet word" for a while, it is too funny to leave alone. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the last signing-infobox- issue
Forgot to address this earlier, but there is one last problem with the infobox. To say plainly "sony" is ambiguous and inconsistent with the fact that the next entry is "columbia", also a sony label. An American Columbia signing, in fact, one would argue is more pure "Sony" because their material is pushed through "sony music" networks and affiliates in 75+ countries almost automatically, and those international companies obviously operate as sony music-"country name". So if we are to discriminate between Sony signings in the first place, then we must write "sony music canada" along with Columbia. If not, only including Sony actually makes more sense- for consistency sake! But of course the lengthy, exhaustive arguments here prove the necessity to discriminate. Imperatore (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure which route to take here. Personally I'd rather only include Sony, because it just gets too messy with "Sony Music Canada" and "Columbia", both with almost identical date ranges, so that's what I'd like to go with. What are your thoughts?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, no offense but I think I've made my position very clear by now lol.

If you want some good examples of other artists, check out Hedley (band). Signed to Universal Canada, they had to go seek a signing in the US, much like OLP in the 90s under sony canada. However with Hedley, they did not end up signing with a Universal company in the US (such as the island def jam music group or interscope-geffen-a&m group)... but instead were picked up by an EMI company, Capitol Records. Eventually in 07 capitol dropped the band cuz they didn't really get anywhere with them. I would imagine had they signed with a Universal American signing, say Island Records under island def jam group (I do believe they were interested), people would have included Island in the infobox, and would not have kept it solely universal music or universal music canada.

This reinterates two points:

1)Generally, all non US signings with the "big four" only apply to that territory only, and should a band wish to go beyond their territory, they are generally free to work with anyone.

2)I forgot my second point...lol

Back to OLP, looking back now in 09 with Burn Burn, we can see how the signings impacted their career. Naveed, a pure sony canada release, when they look back now completely off sony....they say how it's their most prized sound and that now independent wished to return to that sound. Is it not a coincidence that after signing in the US that the sound began to change?...they were now hooked up with big A&R (artist & repertoire) people who took the band in the direction they chose. As you seem to be a fan, I don't think I have to go any further to reinterate how their signings have impacted their music/career. It is definetly no coincidence, the signings are obvious. Just by virtue of the impact to their careers and the actual music they made, it is notable to discriminate between the signings, along with the technical arguments. Imperatore (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done with this... I'm not an expert on record label issues, and it seems that you are, so you can go ahead and arrange the Infobox to your discretion; whatever you feel is most appropriate. By the way, are you suggesting that their sound changed in 1997 with their Columbia signing? If so I disagree, it only really changed for the worse in 2002, with Gravity. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 03:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I read through some prose while copyediting that the sound on the second album was different, but obviously I never said for the worse, nor would I ever think that a renowned, famous band would have just one debut album as a critical success. In any case, I just hope that my explanations weren't for nothing and that you are genuinely interesting in learning something new. At the end of the day, I know it's all about the music, but the business side definitely has a direct impact on the production of music, and I discovered that OLP turns up to be a fine example. Imperatore (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, I find the post 2000 coverage (beginning with Change in Direction subtitle) can be expanded and rearranged/condensed. There's good, sourced info about how the band came close to breaking up on the Paraoid Times page, and some of that can be transferred onto the main page. Also the subtitles would be nice if combined somehow from the current album title break down (1.4.1 ,1.4.2 ,1.4.3) Imperatore (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady (of) Peace
Please explain your revert of my edit to Our Lady Peace. Our Lady of Peace has a hatnote to the band, so the band should have a hatnote to Our Lady of Peace. Please respond under this comment. -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ] 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (in response to your comment on my talk page, please respond here to keep the conversation threaded.) I am not saying that OLP stands for Our Lady of Peace, I am simply saying that Our Lady of Peace is very similar to the band's name, and should be hatnoted accordingly. By your argument, OLP does not stand for Our Lady of Peace, then it should have a separate link in the hatnote, since people looking for Our Lady of Peace would not click the OLP disambig link.  -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ]  03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we can restore it then I have no problem. One of the other reasons I reverted it as well was due to the spelling error. So I'll put it back in and fix the error. Thanks. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 03:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, for some reason, that spelling was added to my checker's dictionary. I have removed the term.  -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ]  06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - did you mean to also revert 74.216.1.184's edit? I don't know much about OLP, so I cannot verify the statement that was added, just wanted to make sure that was intentional.  -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ]  06:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was an accident on my part, thanks for letting me know. I've restored the IP's change, it appears the statement is WP:OR. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OLP
Check!Publichall (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you mention that the deluxe edition of Burn Burn (album) is in fact, Burn Burn Burn? just as a note. Publichall (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Simultaneous substitution
I did not know that Citytv would not be able to use simultaneous substitution everywhere. What will govern whether a particular Citytv affiliate will be able to simsub or not? YLee (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Every Citytv affiliate can request substitution, but substitution can only be requested within the local area of each station (usually a 100-km radius or so), per CRTC regulations. And unlike Global or CTV, Citytv only has 5 stations across the country. Since there are no Citytv stations anywhere near my locality, for example, the NBC signal during The Jay Leno Show will not be simsubbed in my case. Thus, I am of the opinion that a link to simulcast in general would be a better usage, though a separate mention of simsubbing is warranted, which I have incorporated.


 * Simsubbing regulations get even more fuzzy and difficult with HDTV simsubs, or if you subscribe to Bell TV. Bell TV has been allowed to simsub all across the country for every Canadian network, including Citytv, due to a technicality. That's why I have StarChoice :). &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Burn Burn alt.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Burn Burn alt.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. FileBot (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

video in Ejaculation
There have been many discussions about removing the picture and the video, about having both things, etc. None of them came close to any consensus to remove the video. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop
Please stop reverting the use of "North American" in the lead sentence. The only one changed was that term, and that was almost four months ago. Unless you can prove that GM is no longer part-owned by the Canadian and Ontario governments, then "North American" is the appropriate use. (The change in ownership occurred after the 3rd opinion was posted, and changed the nature of the debate.) I would ask that you stop reverting until this can be worked out on the talk page, because at present the facts are in favour of "North American". --Ckatz chat spy  16:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles
Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Machines
Hey, I'm not sure if anyone's noticed but I've nominated Spiritual Machines for Good Article Status and have been editing it like a mad man. I need all the grammar & context help I can get. Just go to the talk page. thannx. Publichall (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ángel Juarbe, Jr.
A tag has been placed on Ángel Juarbe, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

?
how do you like 2000s (decade) now? kickin' ass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.232.180 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OLP
Cool!!!!! Spiritual Machines would be awesome! I wonder where they will be playing?Publichall (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! Publichall (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of this, I got way in over my head and nominated Spiritual Machines for FA! It's going through rigorous editing and re-tooling right now. Who knows, It might just work! Anyway, it would be the perfect time for SM to appear on the homepage for all to see. Happy Holidays! Publichall (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of films about the RMS Titanic
I have nominated List of films about the RMS Titanic, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of films about the RMS Titanic&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
You are currently engaging in an edit war against consensus. Please discuss before deleting the image for a 4th time. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tonight Show collage.png
Thanks for uploading File:Tonight Show collage.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ker αun oςc op ia◁ talk  21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Spring Holiday
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Spring Holiday. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tonight Show
Why do you keep reverting the change showing Conan is leaving? It's been officially announced his last day is Jan 21. And Leno returns March 1. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re read WP:CRYSTAL. We can include information that is verifiable and almost certain to happen. Both of which apply to this information. Conan IS leaving on Friday and Leno is scheduled to start Mar 1. This is both almost certain to happen and verifiable. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not." This is point 3. This does not apply in this case as this is not "future history". Nor extrapolation or speculation. It is a verifiable event that will be occuring tomorrow and March 1st. Not unlike how we post dates for future Boxing matches, UFC fights, sporting events, etc... etc... Gateman1997 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No but we can list it as (March 1, 2010 - ). As it is a verifiable certain to happen date, just as we list the date range for events like 2010 FIFA World Cup. Also I've taken the debate to the talk page for convenience. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on "Tonight Show"
A note to both of you... while your intentions are no doubt good, the reverting back and forth is far more damaging to the encyclopedia than the text itself. I've locked the page for a half-hour, as you're both in a position to be blocked for edit warring and 3RR. Beyond that, however, I expect the two of you to hash this out on the talk page before either of you make any further changes to the disputed text. That way, you can avoid further sanctions. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Our Lady Peace Etc.
Thanks a lot for the barnstar! Yes I'm on the CM but I'm not very good at it + I'm not on there too often, I'm "John Bob the Great"..

create completely new page for the year 2010 of "The Tonight show with Jay Leno
HI,I'm new to wiki, how do you create a new page for the new 2010 The Tonight show with Jay Leno.? can you please do this or help/teach me of how to do that? I think this is very important for the show.Loserjay10 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great answer to my question, I really appreciate it that you took the time and answered it for me in detail, I think that create a new article titled "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2010 TV series)" becoming a disambiguation page is the way to do this. please send me a msg back when you get any new news about this situation.Thanks again for helping me with this, I really Really appreciate it.Loserjay10 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for telling me that there's been change in the "The Tonight show with Jay Leno", i sincerely appreciate for all your help.Loserjay10 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What do Admin do and how can they be contacted?
Sorry to bother you CIS, as I am fairly new at Wikipedia I need some assistance. I recall people mentioning admin in the discussion on the ejaculation page. Can you tell me how to get in touch with any of them, or how to find out who they are? The discussion is going off the rails again. I started an RfC and it is being abused - ie long drawn out posts (with repetition) citing of failed policy proposals and basically treating the RfC (which it took me some time to figure out how to set up) with disregard. Any help you can offer would be appreciatedDMSBel (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ADMIN. Hope this helps. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, I should have been able to find that.82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lightfoot
Thanks. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.jpg
Please, before reverting the delete image due to no FUR tag next time you may be better actually counting how many articles the image is linked to and then compare them to how many FURs there are. You may find a discrepancy. I did! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2010 TV series)
Thanks! I have been signing the posts, I changed my signature and it must not be showing up. I will update it. Thanks! MH 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhayes1995 (talk • contribs)

How's this? Mwhayes1995 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working fine now... great. Saves the bots having to come in and unnecessarily edit. Thanks. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats going to happen to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2010 TV series) page? is it going to remain like it is, or those idiots going to merge the 2010 show with 1992-2009 show? let me know ok!!Loserjay10 (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)