User talk:Eternal Equinox/Archive 1

Archive 1: January 28 2006 &mdash; February 18 2006.

Welcome! Hello, Eternal Equinox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 more good links for to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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! -- Longhair 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Help has arrived
Hi, how can we help you? You can ask your question here and place  so we know to check back. Or you can join us online in the #wikipedia-bootcamp IRC channel. Inter\Echo 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) When one is writing in the edit summary box while conducting an edit, how is it that "-->Section of article" appears beside the edits that were made to the article? I am perplexed by this and could not uncover how to do this during the time I edited under an IP address. An answer would be most appreciated, thank you.
 * This happens whenever you use one of the header [Edit] links instead of using the "edit this page" top button.
 * 1) How are self-created graphs, tables, etc. uploaded on to Wikipedia?
 * You can upload them to Wikipedia via the toolbox on your left sidebar. See Uploading_images and Image_use_policy for information on what you can and can't do. We want png files if possible. You also have to make sure that you tag your images with the appropriate copyright information. Failure to do so will lead to removal of your picture, regardless if it's yours or not.
 * 1) What is the purpose of "user boxes"?
 * See Userboxes. It's just boxes that you can put on your user page.
 * 1) Are there a certain number of edits one is not allowed to exceed per day?
 * None whatsoever! Happy editing! Inter\Echo 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. –Eternal Equinox 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits at Brokeback Mountain
Your edit summary concerning my mis-leading of the film's release was not intentional, so please do not make it seem like it was. I was unsure of whether it had been widely-distributed on that date or not, so please accept my apology for placing the incorrect information in the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, but in the future don't make changes unless you're sure something isn't incorrect! Moncrief 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll make sure to. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Registered account
Hey! It's me, the anonymous user who you had assumed to be the disease of Toronto East. I take no offense, so don't worry. I would like to thank you for supporting me in registering an account and allowing the district library to edit on Wikipedia once again rather than taking the initiative in ensuring the block of the IP address 64.231. Now that I have registered an account, I was wondering how to join the WikiProject Video Games and was curious to know if you wanted to work on an article together? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really have anything to do with library policy. You can join the WikiProject by adding the appropriate userbox to your page; check out the WikiProject page for details. If you want to collaborate on an article with other CVG enthusiasts, I suggest the GCOTW. --Pagrashtak 06:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggesting a collaboration with another leads me to believe that you are not interested, which is fair enough. Thanks for the information! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Another FA?
Hello. I had just been browsing Wikipedia and was wondering if you'd like some help with We Belong Together? I know some useful non-chart-performance information about it, which I'd glady include in the article. Do you wish me to help you out? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Sure, you can help out with the article. I am greatful for all the help that I can get. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing that I am not in any way interested in Mariah Carey, my knowledge is based off of a friend's inhumane love of the singer. I'll place the information I am aware of on the talk page when I have the time. If you'd like the references, I will provide them as well. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We Belong Together did not peak at the number-one position on the Canadian BDS Airplay chart. It did, however, reach number two for four weeks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:48
 * According to mariah daily, the song did chart at number one for 4 wks. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the website does state that it peaked at number one in Canada for four weeks. This is interesting because it charted on the airplay chart and not the official Canadian singles chart. Does it qualify for an official position without any success of the solicitated CD single which never charted in the Canadian Top 50? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 14:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that you have striked out some of your "music" comments from the peer review section. Does that mean that you think the suggestion was addressed? Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  16:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talkpage. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)



Boyzone
I see someone else already turned it into a redirect, which is actually a better solution than deletion. Let me know if you need anything else.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits at Look at Me (Geri Halliwell song)
Hi, I noticed your edits at Look at Me (Geri Halliwell song), you deleted the Uk chart run, britpop category, etc and you added some uncessary stuffs like Notes, References and you don't have to put how many weeks the single peaked except if it's on number-one. And it's not only Geri who wrote the song.

I'm saying this, because I'm the one who start that article and I don't like that you keep putting uncessary things and deleting the infos I'd put there before. And there's no need for you to clean-up the article since it's good from the beginning--Hotwiki 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You must understand that Wikipedia has a policy called Citing sources. This policy states the following:


 * This page is a style guide, describing how to write citations in articles. Providing sources for edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. See those pages and Reliable sources for more information.


 * Citing sources serves several purposes:


 * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To enhance the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
 * To show that your edit isn't original research.
 * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
 * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To provide more information or further reading.


 * When inline citations, notes, footnotes and references are not included in the article, it will not be possible for Look at Me (Geri Halliwell song) to become a featured article, as it would lack the criteria adhering to a substantial article. Therefore, please do not revert the references and citations provided at the bottom of the article. For another song that is currently being worked on to eventually become a featured article, see We Belong Together and the notes and references included in the article.


 * For the chart trajectory, I have recently discovered a template to place the numbers in. I'm going to insert the template into the article. Thank you! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you don't have to tell that, I know more than you know.
 * Second, Do you really know who wrote Look At Me, I have the album it's not only Geri, its Geri and the Absolute Boys (Watkins/Wilson) FYI!
 * Third, you have to put the exact date! not just month/year
 * Fourth, you don't have to put elsewhere
 * Fifth, you don't have to put how many weeks on it's peak posiotion except for number-one
 * Sixth, Fyi I'm the owner of this site
 * Seventh, The releaase date should be in the intro
 * Eighth, Don't think that you know all about creating a good article.--Hotwiki 15:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the owner of Spicediscography? I am reluctant in believing you for two reasons: What is your name? If it is the same as the owner, then I will believe you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC
 * 1) Your writing style is different than that of the Spicediscography owner.
 * 2) I have met with the owner of Spicediscography.
 * Lol--Hotwiki 14:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose this means that you are not the owner. Please do not lie and idetnify yourself as another. Thamk you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh wat are you talking about?--Hotwiki 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please post your responses on my talk page to ensure that I remember we were conducting a conversation. Seeing how my previous message covered no more ground than asking you not to deceive me; you are not the owner of SpiceDiscography. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of Super Mario 64
I am concerned about the featured article status for this article. It was originally promoted with only two references. Did the candidacy vote work differently in early 2005? The article greatly fails the criteria guideline number 2, letter C: "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). I myself would have strongly opposed if I had been editing Wikipedia last winter. Any reason why you believe it was promoted? Please respond on my talk page. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Poor articles regularly pass through FAC. The problem is that promotion depends on the number of support votes, not whether problems have been fixed. In many cases, FAC is used as an opportunity to group hug, and effort is commended instead of result. Unfortunately too few critical editors participate; I used to be fairly active myself reviewing FACs, but find it futile nowadays. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, and judging by the number of articles that had been promoted in 2003 and 2004, your word is commendable. I must admit that I am confused as to why the users defending the article do not believe citations are required. Perhaps a featured article review should be conducted? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate it for review. Even if the article loses its FA status, the end result should be that the article itself should improve. Which is much more important than a rating given to it by an arbitrary selection of editors. Jaco  plane  00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are against or leaning toward Super Mario 64 losing its FA status, but thank you for the advice and the interesting statement. Terrific user name colours, by the way. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I think the article probably needs more references if it is to maintain its FA status. The quality requirements for featured articles do seem to have gone up significantly since the article was first nominated. Jaco  plane  00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see additional references are being included. Finally. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time you are uncertain about the status of a featured article, it might be a good idea to do a review at Featured article review first. This would have probably been better in this case as well. However, I had forgotton this review even existed.. Jaco  plane  00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't discovered featured article review for quite some time following the nomination at WP:FARC. However, for future reference, you are right. I will place it for review first. Thank you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Looking at Kelly Clarkson
I've dropped that article from my watchlist, along with every other than I somehow found myself cleaning up and maintaining (Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Avril Lavigne and Janet Jackson are a few examples) for no apparent reason. I'm just tired of the POV and fangush, the excessive detail, the linkspam etc. and ad infinitum that bombard these kind of articles (essentially ones related to contemporary pop culture in some way) every single day of the week, especially when I don't care about "Kelly" or "Janet" (as the more fawning contributions to these articles refer to them as) and more and more of my Wikipedia time becomes devoted to cleaning up all of this rather than actually writing articles about subjects that I am interested in (which is what I came here to do in the first place!). I'm humbled that you offered, but I have to refuse as I'm just not a fan of Clarkson's music. I recommend consulting featured articles in the categories of "Media" and "Music" such as Sharon Tate, Julia Stiles and (in particular) Kylie Minogue, as well as Ashlee Simpson; also, be sure to keep it from transforming into a "Kelly" shrine and make sure that Image:Kelly Clarkson in September 2002.jpg doesn't get trimmed as it is public domain. Extraordinary Machine 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I did not request for you to help me promote the article to a standard of any type, you did save me valuable typing-time. Thank you! Speaking of Image:Kelly Clarkson in September 2002.jpg, how is it that an image becomes public domain? I am not going to be removing it from the article because it is specially classified, but under what circumstances and copyright laws does one become public domain? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * An image can become public domain if the copyright holder chooses to release it into the public domain, but in the case of this image, it is public domain because it is a work of the United States Federal Government. Extraordinary Machine 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for correcting the citations. Do you have any suggestions on how to properly format references? I think I'm beginning to understand some more but am not quite there yet. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson
You removed the images that I uploaded onto the Kelly Clarkson wikipedia page because you said that they did not qualify as fair use. Obviously, you must be confused since since you just asked someone what does and what doesn't qualify as fair use.

Explain to me how these images are a violation of fair use but all the other screencapped images on Wikipedia including the one on the front page aren't?

The Wikipedia screenshot page reads: ''Some companies believe the use of screenshots is an infringement of copyright on their program. This is one of the issues "solved" by Trusted Computing. Under Trusted Computing, programs will be able to block the taking of screenshots of their windows. Countering this argument is the principle of fair use, which (in U.S. law) permits copying of images or text for 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.'''

This is a screenshot taken from a live tv event, it's legally no different then the screenshots used on the September 11 terrorist attack page or any other page relating to a tv show. HeyNow10029 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Public domain images are allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia without fair use rationale because they have been released by the independent company and/or owner. Government images immediately qualify as public domain. The images you added to the article require fair use rationale because we do not want Wikipedia to be sued by the company and/or owner. For more information, please see Images. Until you are able to provide fair use, the images should not be placed in the article. I would also like to mention that I am going to be initiating a heavy clean-up on the article since it is filled with fan-cruft, non-notable information, no sales figures, and little information on Clarkson's influences and early life. Thank you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing in good faith
Equinox, I was surprised to see that old language had returned to Brokeback Mountain and looked to see if there had been any additional discussion about it. I could not easily determine who made the change and not finding any discussion, I restored the text. I then noticed that you had archived the previous discussion and after searching through the history confirmed that you had made the change. This doesn't seem like editing in good faith to me. I stated my case, and was supported by Moncrief. You never made a counter claim for your version.

I am more than willing to discuss this. To reiterate, I don't think this is a big deal, but since Moncreif and I had reasons for our version, and you did not make a case for yours, I think ours should stay until you make a convincing case. -- Samuel Wantman 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * SamuelWantman, I am truly sorry. I was running a test on the article and reverted to an older version to confirm something, but forgot to return it to your version. You can revert it and I am sorry if I inflicted any negativity on the article or the discussions. I had archived the talk because it had been inactive for approximately a week. If you would like to restore it to the talk page, by all means go right ahead. Once again, I am sorry for my mistake. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 14:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference formatting
See Cite sources/example style and APA style (and Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations if you prefer to use templates)...I'm really not sure myself! Extraordinary Machine 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, thank you very much! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello
Unfortunetly, I have no experience with any of those articles, in particular that style of music, i tend to avoid like the plague. (no offence) the most likly thing i would look at is paper mario, but even then, i've never played the game and I'm not really familiar with anyone who has-- ZeWrestler   Talk 07:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, that wasn't quite what I had meant to ask. I suppose I wasn't clear enough. Are there any articles that you (not me) are currently working on or editing that I could take a peek at? I plan on expanding my contributions to other realms on Wikipedia. Thanks! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. My mistake for the misunderstanding.  I haven't been as active as wikipedia as i've wanted to recently, (stupid school work)  but looking at my to-do list, I've been meaning to attempt getting Final Fantasy VI, Ancient Rome, and the Rock cycle articles to FA status.  Any help with those 3 will definetly be great.  I've also been toying with the idea of working on the The Legend of Zelda article as well.  If I can think of anything else, I'll tell you.  Thanks. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll see what I can do. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil Collins
Just a quick thank you again for your vote of support for Phil Collins during its FAC review. I just learned that it won its nomination. (See []). Thank you again for taking the time to review it. --Ataricodfish 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)