User talk:Ericorbit/Archive12

thriller
Hey on the Thriller 25 section could you join up the certification part of the table for the 2 US charts. At the minute only the 300,000+ sales part is joined up. Realist2 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

please....
i spent time looking for that information... do not delete it... people dont care about those rules... they wanna know how many records have been sold... thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron nizamov96 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hurtful
I would like to draw your attention to these hurtful comments left on my talk page. As i am Hispanic these comments are very offencive, the fact that the user is probably black and loves obama is no concern of mine (im a strong supporter of racial equality). Realist2 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you
thank you for informing, that's very nice of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante1707 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
hi, I tried to move the article but it gave me a wrong message, showing up that there was an article with that name and it couldn't be moved. So I erased the article and I created another (I didn't copy and paste it).

Regards  E d u e m o n i ↑ talk ↓ 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Austin cookins and Timbaland
I have a question, the pages that I deleted have been restored. But i put that they both have no source. What do i need to do to get them off.

Austin Cookins, has only a myspace page. A few days ago he stated that he signed with Timbalands label and worked on Madonnas album and just added his name to many different artists credits. He is looking using wikipedia to promote himself

The Wave of Music is also unsourced. every other day it seems like some one takes away and adds new tracks by random people with no source.

how can both of these pages not be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward609va (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Austin Cookins is a troll from IMDb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.203.8 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tables
Ca you please stop undoing the tables that I am creating. They are in accordance with Wiki regulations, they look better and don't look as squashed together. If this continues I will consider reporting you for bullying as it is very unfair what you are doing. talk

Re: Edit warring on Foo Fighters article
I would actually consider a block on User:38.99.101.131 (and User:131.125.114.132) as they've made more than 4 reverts on the said article today combined. Scarian Call me Pat 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additions to the SSP. I never knew we were dealing with so many... :-| Thanks! Scarian Call me Pat  01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Madonna album updating
Hi there, thank you for response regarding the Hard Candy tracklist guidelines. I have attempted to do the same for the rest of her albums, but some crazed deranged obsessive fan keeps reverting it to the sprawling tables claiming that 'tables can also be used in tracklistings under general'. Please look at the history of her other albums and do revert to this simplified version that adheres to Wiki Albums where possible.

Much appreciated.

Reqluce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a fresh Talk page on each individual album? This idiot clearly thinks Madonna is a hip hop artist and requires all the esoteric information. Is there any way to bring this to a higher authority?Reqluce (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response again. Barely 10 minutes after I had updated the Hard Candy page (I read your message on that user's Talk page) and the sad little person reverted it (as it did to all my other updates to the Madonna pages). You are correct, she has had few vocal collaborations over the course of her recording career and does not warrant a table. I have reverted all the pages to the simplified version. Please kindly revert to the simplified version too if you come across any which still bears the unnecessary tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User DWMN is now starting a fresh round of revertions without bothering to read his/her talk page requesting discussion in the Hard Candy page. please note. Reqluce (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart
Hi, I see you edit the Billboard Hot 100 article frequently and I have a question about the Bubbling Under Hot 100 singles. I know the chart is a different chart for singles, but User:Icelandic Hurricane insists that they are one in the same and adds numbers like #115 in the Hot 100 column of the singles chart on Sum 41 discography. I need a third opinion so this can be resolved. Thanks. Tim meh  !  23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

4 Minutes
Please look at the '4 Mintues' page, there seems to be a lot of iTunes notations which, for the right reasons, you axed on the album page. I am in favor it it being removed.Reqluce (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Suspected sock puppets/Spooky873
We managed to get the three meat puppet accounts indef blocked and Spooky got plugged for 48 hours. Good job. I've struck the comments on the FF talk page of the socks/meat puppets. I'm not sure on the best way to get Spooky to stop being an ass though... Any ideas? Scarian Call me Pat!  00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the notability of hot tubs
Sorry for stepping on your toes on that Debbie Harry revert. I violated the Golden Rule this morning: Coffee first, then wikipedia. Fullobeans (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ignorant revision
STOP oversimplifying and editing the Mariah Carey singles discography. I edited the entire page the way it is and have provided my reasoning in the discussion. Do not attack members for not leaving their reasoning behind edits and then turn around and give no explanation yourself.

Compromise

''After someone oversimplified Mariah Carey's singles chronology, I took into consideration that there was in fact some need of a quick and simple overview of her WW success. I went ahead and kept the detailed chronolgy, but made a quick-glance SINGLES ONLY WW list. All featured appearences, promos, and album tracks are not present.--The Knowledge (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)''

--The Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

compromise
As I gave my insight into why the page remains, I removed the unnecessary additions someone had added (i.e. the Number Ones United States Singles, as well the Billboard Year-End Positions)

Everything else is valid and will remain. A singles overiew is important because it doesn't overwelm one with extensive sales figures, 10+ chart positions, certifications, re-releases, and album correlation. A singles overview is quick and simple.--The Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern to clean the page up and I did just that, but I do hope you understand the significence of having both tables. Thank you for your understanding.--The Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but I feel strongly, especially on the Madonna page, that a Singles Overview is needed. It's needed DESPERATELY on her page. There have been several un-noted complaints about how bust Madonna's discography was. I never cared until I looked at it myself and, yes, it needed work. I didn't want to change the amount of detail someone had worked on, but I feel it needs an addition "overview" for those not interested in a breakdown of EVERY SINGLE country and certification available for one Madonna single. Do you see my reasoning?--The Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea, but so so SO many people protest having charts in the main article. I don't, but I guarentee it will be removed. I say go for it, otherwise I will. lol. --The Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I added my infamous Singles Overview to the main Madonna and Mariah Carey articles. What do you think? I personally think they look great there. Should it be broken down into Top 10 or #1 singles only though? I'm not sure--The Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan~ --The Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey eo, im not sure this is conventional but i was thinking that me and the elfoid might just be entitled to a barnstar!!!!!!!!!! Lol, ok ok just hear me out, there is a barnstar called the half barnstar which is awarded to 2 editors who have opposing views yet manage to work it out and make wiki better. To me at least that sounds exactly like what happened with the thriller merger thing. We completely disagreed yet in the end worked together for months creating a new article and improving the original article. What do you think? Realist2 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Westlife on Mandy (song)
Why are you replacing that content when it has been the general consensus to not include it? -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note. I was just reading the edit histories of various articles about this, and in fact went looking for the myspace page (its set to private). Will keep an eye out. JKW111 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted album review...?
Just curious why you deleted the album review I added to George Strait today. Last time I checked, Wikipedia didn't have an exclusive contract with AMG, and the review I added was not only from a professional source, but for a strictly country music source. As a country fan, I found it much more relevant. There was no reason to remove that review. Countrymusicfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm new here to Wiki, but I did read the project guidelines before I added the review. It didn't say anything about blogs specifically--the guidelines referred to 'professional music journalists' which would not unnecessarily exclude a blog anyway (half of the publications on the approved list are online-only, anyway). And I thought it definitely qualified. Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to join the album project as soon as I figure out how to edit my user page! Countrymusicfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning templates
This message relates to this edit. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback warning
Please only use rollback to revert obvious vandalistic edits. This edit was not an appropriate use of rollback and should have been performed with a proper edit summary. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
Hey eo, is there a process for listing complaints against administrators? I feel I have been treated unfairly and wish this to be brought to someone's attention. JKW111 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looked too complicated. I think I'll just let it pass. JKW111 (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I Want Your Love (Chic song)
Was it you who added the "succession box" to the entry? If so, I wanted to thank you; I don't know how to make those things! Lol... (talk) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmalone (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2008

Thriller
Hi, thriller is undergoing a peer review of FA, it will pass FA soon, but one requirement is that i significantly chope down the Thriller 25 section. I wont allow or do it, it was never made obvious when the merger was voted on that this would be a requirement for FA. They are saying they only want 2/3 paragraphs on Thriller 25, the rest should be deleted. Im not going to only have two paragraphs for one of the best selling reissues of all time unless T25 can have its own page again. The peer reviewer is suggesting giving T25 its own page again so that only the essentuals remain on the mother page. Realist2 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seperate we can have 2 articles reach FA but together the 1 only reaches GA. I hope you will support this, its for the best interest of the articles. Realist2 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, personally ive come to like seeing it all together, ive worked so hard on this monster article ive become proud of seeing it all together. That said i wont destroy months of work to get Thriller up to FA, i just wont do it, T25 was/is a success in its own right, people want to know about that too. Hopefully it wont prevent it getting FA but if it does i see no alternative but to give Thriller 25 its own page. Realist2 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive left some stuff at the peer review, you might find it interesting to consider. Realist2 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out the michael jackson article and talk page. A user (cooljuno411) keeps adding MJ'S mugshot to the article in either one of two places. He has also managed to start a discussion on race at the talk page. An archived consensus was that the mugshot should not be on the article. Additionally as the guy was found not guilty its misrepresentation and i believe the picture is being considered for deletion. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Im also concerned about the edits he made on African American. here Realist2 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Realist left the project. I already archived the peer review because it was really bad. If ever you have comments, please drop on the article's discussion page or to its next PR. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Whitburn/Billboard/Bronson: 80 vs. 79, etc.
I made a couple of other "counting number" edits on April 6 based on the same Whitburn book. But besides Presley, those were on Aretha Franklin, Elton John & the Beatles, who should postdate the "multiple charts" snag. Ray Charles just barely creases the 1958 consolidation. Check those out if possible... either set of numbers is fine by me.208.120.6.206 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasure EP's
Interested that if "Am I Right" is going to be removed from the singles section are we going to remove "Stop!" and "Take A Chance On Me" as they were part of the Crackers International EP and Abba-Esque EP rather than singles in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonclay (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Madonna's forthcoming tour
Hi eo, could you please have a look at the article Forthcoming Madonna tour - i suspect it should be deleted as it's complete rumour at the moment. Thanks. JKW111 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tables in List of No. 1 Dance Hits
I've started a talk section in Talk:List_of_No._1_dance_hits_%28United_States%29. Your input would be appreciated.

Tjwallace87 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blondie heartofglass.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Blondie heartofglass.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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Blondie discography
Hi there, Sorry to bother you but I've noticed that you and I have.... similar taste in music (read: Blondie, Donna Summer and others) and that you are an experienced and constructive user looking out for vandals.

I was wondering if I could ask your advice on a matter regarding Blondie and their discography here on Wikipedia; it concerns a (potential) edit war between me and another user, Indopug, and especially when it comes to the use of multiple images on pages (such as singles issued with different cover art in the US/UK and/or other countries as well as remix singles issued in the 80's, 90's and 2000's). He managed to delete about 40-50% of the single sleeves and other images within the space of 15-20 minutes with explanations like "I like the US one better", "Removed a lot of crap" "No need for more than one picture on one page" etc. etc. Parts of pages which had infoboxes with double single chronologies for Blondie/Debbie Harry he just deleted with the explanation "This is not a Debbie Harry song". Parts of bios that mentioned certain remixes he just deleted, quickly followed by the picture itself, with the comment "picture not discussed in article". Etc. etc. Clearly bordering on vandalism IMHO. But then I can't recite WP:NFCC in my sleep... If you check the Blondie singles discography starting with In the Flesh (song) and the history pages you'll soon see what I mean. The same goes for most of the compilation albums issued with different covers. You can see our discussion on our talk pages. I've tried my utmost to stay civil... :-)

Now to my question; do you know any experienced, trusted and most importantly non-biased editor I could contact over this matter and have him review User Indopug's edits, his sometimes (from my point of view since I happen to be European) slightly xenophobic explanations, his conclusions over what fair use of non-free images and WP:NFCC really entails etc. so that we can reach some sort of constructive solution? I happen to think that a classic band like Blondie deserves a comprehensive discography.

Thanks in advance for your time,

S.

Dreamer.se (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

Re. remixes
Yes pages like "Heart Of Glass", "Denis", "Rapture" and "Union City Blue" plus the "Rapture Riders" entries, all of which were Top 20 chart entries in the UK, and some also hits on the US dance charts - but he deleted all of those with the same explanation: no need for more than one picture. Quoting WP:NFCC etc. etc. and acting like a self-proclaimed editor - not a user. Plus I didn't mention that I received a rather unpleasant message from him when I first questioned his deletions... So... any help greatly appreciated.

Thanks for a prompt reply!

Dreamer.se (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

More news from Mr. Indopug
Just found this on my talkpage:


 * On an side note many of these pictures are too big to fall within the fair use limit of 300 х 300. Maybe the "Rapture Riders" cover can be added back but re-issues are hardly important; the prose at best will make a passing reference to their release dates (not their music, which is the exact same as the original single obviously). Another thing I have a problem with is if the two album covers are very similar such as for the Live (US) and Livid (UK) album covers, or the "Tide is High" covers. (BLondie's single should have its own article BTW) indopug (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor talking again.... What are your opinions on this, re our discussion of remixes re-entering the charts? Am I overreacting or does he seem to have "a problem" with the Blondie discography in general...?

I see that he doesn't mind bending the truth when it suits him either; when he "removed a lot of crap" he removed the original lengths of the 1979 7" & 12" singles of "Heart of Glass" from the infobox... Just check the history pages.

So; reaching a common sensus with this particular user (note user - not 'editor') seems difficult if not impossible. Got any ideas?

Thanks again,

Dreamer.se (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

One more clarification
The part where he says something along the lines "pictures of every single from the entire world"; there was 1 (read: one) picture of a German single sleeve. A slight exaggeration in other words.....

Time for bed here in Stockholm, but I'll be checking in tomorrow morning and see what's happened; if you have any further questions just ask.

And.... thanks! I really appreciate it.

Dreamer.se (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

Hello
I can see that Dreamer.se made look like a real ogre here :). Anyway in my defence, there plenty of songs are that released across the world and classic world singles keep getting reissued too (heck some of them might chart too); hence there are plenty of different album covers for all these different releases. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to list each and every one of these covers, that would be blatant disregard of our Fair-use rules which are, for a reason, extremely strict--we are the free encyclopedia, not the really pretty encyclopedia with an exhaustive gallery of covers.

Also, I find it funny that an ignorance of WP:NFCC can be an excuse for calling me a vandal; especially after I told Dreamer that I intend to cleanup and polish the entire Blondie discography. And Xenophobia? Sorry, but that's just a personal attack. Thanks for listening to my side of the story, indopug (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: I used "removed a lot of crap" while removing an unencyclopedic list of cover performances of a particular song. indopug (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, you make some good points. What I don't understand though is Dreamer referring to me as an "editor" rather than a "user"; I believe all users (with an account anyway) on Wikipedia are editors? (As in, we are here to edit the encyclopedia)
 * As for "Tide is High", singles by any band can have their own page (even if they are covers). The original "Tide is High" page can mention the Blondie cover but, once the new article is in place, need not have a Blondie infobox, the Blondie cover art, song sample etc (all of which will be in the new article). indopug (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello Ericorbit, this is Surfer-boy94 and you being an administrator, what chance would you say that I would have of becoming an administrator if i requested for adminship? I have made lots of constructive edits to wikipedia recently and can you please tell me if I have any chance of becoming one, because I don't want to request and be dissapointed with the results. Thanks, Surfer-boy94. Surfer-Boy94 (talk) 19 April 2008 14:25 (UTC)

The Foundations
Hi, Derek Bullamore has suggested that I contact you as there is a serous problem with this article. a guy named Dave Huffman who says that he owns the name "The Foundations" in the US is constantly deleting important info about the original British band and inserting info about his band. He is ruining lots of hard work put in by George-Archer I have been doing my best to help him, but Huffman who is editing under the name Xtramusic is just deleting all the time and says he is not going to stop. He says he is going to contact his lawyer and has called myself and George "Infantile" and "Morons". I would be very grateful for any help you can give us please. Sincerely, Pat Pending (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Give It 2 Me
I could say the same to you. Just wait till it's confirmed as the next single. PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I Predict it'll be confirmed shortly after the album is released - then I will be riding my high horse once more. PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn how to take a joke and stop being such a prissy little queen. And don't start screaming "homophobe" cuz I'm queer too. PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Bedingfield discography
Hey. I just wanted to known how you felt about this. I've been in a slight editing battle with users who keep on changing the US sales totals for Bedingfield's album Pocketful of Sunshine. From what I understand, forums aren't a reliable source for sales totals. DanV argues that ATRL.net is a good source, but I disagree. I had previously been using a source from Billboard to source sales totals. Mind you, these sales totals are a bit old, but they are the only official sales totals available since the album was released. Thanks. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

you truly ARE aren't you
Poor sensitive flower. "Personal attack"? One queer making fun of another? Oh sweety you need to develop a thicker skin. What some stranger on a keyboard says to you DOES NOT matter. GROW UP. PatrickJ83 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet
Since you've offered guidance to Surfer-boy94 in the past, you may want to weigh in at Suspected sock puppets/Surfer-boy94. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Give It 2 Me
Well you wouldn't know unless you went looking for it would ya. You're such a priss. RELAX. JUST RELAX! PatrickJ83 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

106 & Park
I have been spending my time, every day since September editing 106 & Park for New Joints & New Entries. I have sources (http://www.tamrol.com/106daily/). So please keep it, i'm begging you.

---Piazzajordan2 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respond back, it's reliable information you would find in an encyclopedia. And also, its one article. And If i read an encyclopedia, it has stuff like that. So there is no reason it should be deleted.

---Piazzajordan2 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you recommend any other websites i can share this information at?

---Piazzajordan2 00:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I am getting a little UnWikipedia like (meaning discussing other topics) but do you know any blogs i can use?, and yes before i was planning to take the August-December out sometime before June, or start an article, of just New Joints from 106 & Park and New Entries from 106 & Park, could I Do that?

---Piazzajordan2 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just please let that stay, Wikipedia is the only website i'm known to. And this stuff is in encyclopedia's to, just please.

---Piazzajordan2 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

but i'm honestly just trying to fulfill the article, i'm not trying and didn't have any idea, i was breaking any rules.

---Piazzajordan2 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If it dose get deleted, what should I do from there?, because I tried the blogs and it didn't work.

---Piazzajordan2 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

no, i just want to have it on here also because i edit it sometimes at the library and work and i just want to keep it on here because Wikipedia is the easiest site for me.

---Piazzajordan2 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Is Rueters a reliable source for album sales? There are some concerns about the reliability of the source on the talk page of janet jacksons new album Discipline (album). Would appreciate for advise on this, cheers. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx could you leave that viewpoint on the album talk page, ive had regular disputes (friendly disagreements) with this editer on this issue on a number of articles. Hes very strict about sources, hes definately acting in good faith, but disputing Rueters is getting a little OTT. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello eo, can you do me a favor???
Hi there! =D

EO, there is an article that is being vandalized, and being place of many fancruft editions, can you semi protect it?

It is Girlicious.

I'll be glad if you do it so, thanks in advance

cya

 E d u e m o n i ↑ talk ↓ 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)