User talk:Drdr1989

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Karmafist 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Download-latest-online-music
You have been adding links to a website almost certainly run by you. You have already been warned not to do this but nevertheless, I feel that the additions should be discussed as they may be valid. Please add your comments to Talk:Snoop Dogg. Until this matter is resolved, please do not add any more links to that website on any page. But please do participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Yamla 16:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * But how about this site: A good site?
 * OR this one?

Signature
Hey there, did you know you can easily sign and date your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes i.e. ~. It'll save you some typing and put in an automatic link to your User page. If you want to customise your signature you can do so in your preferences. the wub "?/!"  21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No I actually did not know. I was wondering how their sigs and mine could be so different, not to mention their precise UTC time! I actually had to calculate mine (lol). Thanks! Drdr1989 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

vandalism
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia looking good by reverting 66.171.226.248's vandalism to Bow Wow. DDerby | Talk 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I-15
Out of curiousity.. so I-15 does go to I-5 now? --Rschen7754 03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it now does go up to there as a junction and past that. Go ahead and add it as a junction if you like.  Drdr1989 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg
Drdr1989, please stop editing on the Snoop Dogg article. The date (1972) you kept reverting was wrong. Right now, I recommend you discuss your changes on the talk page please, before editing again. Thank you! -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Snoop pr0nz relisted for the intelligent:


 * Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle (also executive producer)
 * Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz - Diary of a Pimp (also executive producer)
 * Girls Gone Wild: Doggy Style (2002) as Himself
 * Snoop Dogg's Buckwild Bus Tour (also executive producer)
 * Sex in the Studio (guest appearence)

All that, linked to from the articles talk page. How many times do you need telling to read the talk pages before it sinks in? Newsmare 01:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, while you're making revealing edits like these on my behalf, you might have tried a little harder to understand the article on aporia. I'd have been employing aporia if I'd have been addressing, via rhetoric, a problem (genuinely or sarcastically) that I was having with myself.  As it was I was addressing you and your shortcomings, which I really did try to impress upon you with those handy hints.  If only you had better reading comprehension you'd have understood that.  In fact, if you had even a modicum of it, we wouldn't be discussing this at all as you wouldn't have waded into those articles so bereft of clue in the first place.  You try and be a smart***, and succeed in bringing the smart.  Love it, it completes the picture.  Oh well, I expected very little and wasn't disappointed.  If I see another **** up, I'll keep an eye out for ya.  So long.  Newsmare 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, our certain friend has kept his aporic discussion on his page where it belongs. Not to worry, a cure is on the way. In the interim, he'll hopefully do his homework and keep working upwards from the low ranks that he comtemplates and not confuse entertainment with principle. Drdr1989 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic
It appears that your recent changes were reverted. I would support removal of the blog entry if you would like to seek RFCs. Edwardian 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

post-Britpop
post-Britpop or second wave Britpop is the new British music movement of the past 5 yrs or so. The original Britpop phase ended around 97 or 98.

The term is commonly used in the press to describe bands like Coldplay, Keane, Franz Ferdinand), etc.


 * BBC:"Are we in Britpop's second wave?"
 * PopMatters: Parachutes review
 * Guardian UK: "My journey into sound"

I've heard of the term "Britrock", but it's a very generic term that has never been well defined like the two phases of the Britpop movement. And it's never really entered the mainstream.

--Madchester 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Hilary Duff
It's against Wikipedia's style guidelines to wikilink to the names of months unless there is a very good reason to do so. Please do not keep doing this. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gold Stur's comments
I may be an admin, but I am also an Arbitrator, and as an Arbitrator I tend to refrain from using my administrative rights in situations like these. As such, if you feel that Gold Stur deserves some sort of administrative sanction, I suggest you follow our dispute resolution procedures. I won't be blocking or banning him myself for his rather fascinating conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

okay, dates
On Wikipedia, wikified dates can be rearranged to suit each user's personal preferences (mine say "d M yyyy", for instance). There's at least three ways to wikify dates that I know of: 6 December 2005, December 6 2005, and 2005-12-06. All three produce the exact same result on the page, and there is no "Wikipedia's standard format".

A while back I got sick of silly Americans changing dates I'd write as "d M yyyy" to "M d yyyy", often with an edit summary of "fix date" (see also: "colour", "humour", "standardise", etc.). I've also got a bad habit of transposing digits when I write out dates. For this reason, I use "yyyy-mm-dd" &mdash; it theoretically avoids "America vs. everyone else" style wars, and because it's unfamiliar, I have to take more care writing it, and am less likely to make an error. That's why I use it.

As to why I rvted you: I always rvt changes of this kind, even if they move to my preferred format, on principle. I have gotten sick of silly people &mdash; many of whom aren't even American &mdash; changing "color" to "colour" or vice versa, or fiddling with dates, even though it makes no difference to the page. Any questions? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that it makes no difference how the date is written in the source, since by the time anyone looks at it it's in their preferred format. Changing from one format to another &mdash; regardless of what the respective formats are &mdash; simply because the original "looks dorky" to you is deeply obnoxious. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty much, yeah. If you click "Preferences" up in the top right of your browser, you'll notice there's a "Date and time" tab on the preferences page. Click that, and it'll give you a selection of formats you can have it display as.  For a list of formats you can edit as, see here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try it out, thanks Drdr1989 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

References and footnotes
Please stop reverting my addition of footnotes and the References section on Reunion (TV series). Both are perfectly fine: The inclusion of a Refences section is part of Wiki's guidelines (see WP:CITE). The use of the footnotes (see Footnote3) is a Wiki standart used on over 1,000 articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually found the mistake (minor misspelling) and fixed in the my last edit (, which you still reverted)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You were right, it's the web reference template that didn't work properly with the urls. I thought you meant the links within the article (from the footnotes to the References section), that's why I kept reverting, sorry. It's all fixed now. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please keep vandalizing Green Day
It has agreed that they are not punk rock. read the talk page, even though I didn't.Psychomelodic 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently not. YOU read the talk page (even though it might be difficult at this stage).  And what vandalism?  Do you understand the meaning of the term?? Drdr1989 09:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)                                                                                                                           __________________________________________Apparently he doesn't. Psychomelodic, vandalism is bad. Morwen 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Better listen,  p  s  y  c  h  o  m  e  l  o undefined  d  i  undefined  c  undefined  ! Drdr1989 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

links to copy-vios
TO my knowledge we should not make links to sites that are copyright violations. Most lyric sites are, so unless you have reason to think that that particular site is licenced I have removed the link. Agathoclea 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Becky O'Donohue
Thank you for updating the information on this page. I was aware that her sister was in the room, but not singing. The way it was originally stated made it seem as though they both auditioned and only one was passed through, which as we know was not the case. I like how you've worded it now. Again, thank you! Batman2005 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in Green Day article
Please stop reintserting this sentence: "Once exlusively considered a punk rock band, their music now leans more towards pop punk/pop rock." It was decided on the Talk page that this does not belong for a number of reasons, namely that it's extremely POV and comes off as original research. If you are going to add this to the article, please cite a publication or website that makes this claim. WesleyDodds 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would, but it's quite evident that no one can reach an agreement regarding the band's genre. Why not just call them "the band"? Drdr1989 03:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiro revert
Hi Drdr1989, I thought I should let you know as a matter of courtesy that it was quicker to use revert. There was not agreement to make the change you did. Perhaps you could let it wait a couple of days in future before changing the top. I also gave my reasons on the talk page. Thanks. Best wishes. Mccready 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
The WP:3O mechanism really only works to settle good-faith content disputes. It's not at all likely to work for more emotional disputes. The user you're complaining about already removed your 3O request once, which would certainly suggest that he or she is unlikely to accept a third opinion if it's given. So you're probably going to have to use a more formal dispute resolution mechanism, like WP:MC. Kickaha Ota 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try it soon, thanks. Drdr1989 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suzy Tavarez
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Suzy Tavarez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rtphokie (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Suzy Tavarez
A tag has been placed on Suzy Tavarez 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Drdr1989! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sina Schielke -

GA reassessment of Green Day
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cervical manipulation


The article Cervical manipulation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Mostly unsourced article with no claims of notability. The given source only mentions the article topic in passing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  T K  K ! bark with me! 17:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jordan Alan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Alan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jordan Alan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)