User talk:Cholmes75/Archive/Archive-Oct2007

It wasnt you
Oops! I just reverted some vandalism on Macroeconomics and stated that you were the culprit. Sorry! It was actually 137.4.186.6. --Rinconsoleao 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relakks
Hi! The deletion log says you removed the Relakks article, but I don't see a AfD vote anywhere. What happened? --Explodicle 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was speedily deleted, there was no AfD. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there record of any discussion, or did you make this decision alone? On what grounds was it deleted? --Explodicle 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletions do not require discussion, so the decision was mine. It was deleted as WP:SPAM, and the deletion was upheld after a later review.  See Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November).  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks! --Explodicle 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New Day, New IP, Same Person
IP 69.148.69.175 is likely todays Alter_E #. 156.34.208.227 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Do you know this fella? => 156.34.208.227 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on this last snippet of userpage vandalism from another Alterego_IP... I'd say you have an enemy. I will keep an eye on your page(and I don't think I'll be alone doing that) Previously vandalism was caught quickly by the noble HalfShadow he beat me to the rv so he must be fast :D Hopefully Alterego will get bored and take the rest of the night off. Have a nice day! 156.34.208.227 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and protected my user page, so that shouldn't be a problem anymore. I also blocked a few of his IP addresses for a month.  I'm actually enjoying my little game of whack-a-mole.  : )  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at your userpage history to see how much "action" you've stirred up in your Wiki-history. Back in my own username days my page was pretty close to triple-digit scoundrel attacks. I am more content with that fact than I am with just about anything else I did as a logged user :D . It always told me I was doing a good job :D . Have a nice day! 156.34.208.227 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sunday edition... 156.34.210.48 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance User:Cholmes77 is your brother?? :D 156.34.226.99 01:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I sense a rangeblock coming... --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you block the entire 207.69.X.X range while you're at it :D . That's one Earthlink range that's a real "COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT" pain in the A** . :D 156.34.226.99 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there ever any decent edits from Alterego's range? I remember lots of numbers to keep an eye out for. His never rings any immediate bells... it's the edit summary habits. In the end the only truly fantastic and mistake free IP range is... oh... 156.34.X ... I guess :D . 156.34.226.99 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess who?156.34.219.50 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * - Todays version. 156.34.219.50 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * {User|68.88.76.192}} - 3 guesses... first 2 don't count. 156.34.230.78 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A different editor problem... NOT Alterego
Good day. I stumbled upon an editor who takes offence to the directives laid out by WP:ALBUM. See: He has taken offence to the noble cleanup from User:PEJL despite PEJL offering assistance in the past. A check on the user's talk page showed me that you yourself had messaged the editor quite a while ago on the very same topic. If you have 2 minutes perhaps you could pummel some polite mediation in that direction so the box clutter can be hoovered up a bit. Thanks! 156.34.230.78 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the time it took to type that blurb our editor has gone after just about every Kiss album in the list... I'll grant him one thing... he's fast. He's posted his POV on the Kiss talkpage as well as the Black Sabbath talkpage. Basically it's a... "I know you posted the rules... but I don't like 'em so nah-nah-nah nah-nah" situation. That's never happed on Wiki before! :D 156.34.230.78 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Very efficient :D. Any chance you can do a sweeping on Elektra's Black Sabbath alterations? Basically the same thing as the Kiss changes. PEJL will likely have to do a manual "proper formatting" edit. I see he's playing in the Album template sandbox trying to come up with an expanded box to try and appeal to all. For now though the Album Project guidelines are pretty clear. Mr Electricity guy should clan up with that project and work on the their talkpages... he might get his ideas across a little better rather than pushing his own agendas. I've said it a thousand times on here... English Wikipedia has 2M articles and 90% of them are crap. I wonder... 10 years from now...will I still be making that same comment? Hopefully by then it will only be 80% crap :D. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I stayed away from the Sabbath stuff mainly because I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on his changes. I do know the Kiss albums backward and forward, however, so anyone trying to cram a bunch of changes through without discussion will be challenged.  In a perfect Wiki-world, most album articles wouldn't exist at all, but since they do we should at least strive to get them right.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

=
=============================== >>>>>>>>>>Very well, you may ignore what you wish. But future revisions of this type will be treated as vandalism. Have a nice day! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a great day today; thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrokinesis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can't be vandalism if it is a true statement.

Also, I don't have any alter egos; I just don't feel like logging in all of the time. It's redundant.

I will inform you of what has been made clear to many others who just don't seem to get it.

First of all, you are not an official Wiki moderator, so your word has no power with we whatsoever.

Unless you work for the band, or you work for Wiki, I will do as I wish regardless.

If other Kiss fans, Black Sabbath fans; etc. think that I am wrong, then fine. Go ahead and leave it untouched.

I don't have any agenda as you claim; all I want to see is full, correct information.

You and PEJL seem to think that I have total disregard for the system; not true at all!

If an artist is signed to one record company, then list the one record company. If the artist is signed to multiple companies, then list them appropriately as well.

The WP Album template itself says that their guidelines are exactly that; guidelines.

Wikipedia is user supported. People who decide to act in a totalitarian fashion because they think that they "know everything about _______" are suppressing the rights of others to contribute factual, accurate information to the site.

The simple truth is that the Island Def Jam Music Group and Universal, who owns Mercury Records now, puts out Kiss catalog.

Therefore, current information should reflect Mercury as a label.

This is not "pushing an agenda"; this is pure fact.Electrokinesis 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From [] - "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified." So your point about Def Jam, Universal, or any other label is moot.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New IP
is Alterego. 142.167.69.56 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A Matter of Record screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A Matter of Record screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)