User talk:Eternal Equinox/Archive 3

Archive 3: March 2 2006 &mdash; May 28 2006.

We Belong Together FAC
All talk concerning the FAC for We Belong Together should be placed under this section

Journalist, I am going to be resubmitting the article to FAC on Friday night. I'd like it if it passed this time, but do you believe that a sound sample is really required? If we can retrieve one, then that is excellent, but if we don't, would that affect the status of the article? I'm also considering inserting the chart trajectories within the boundaries of an image. Do you have a program that can create graphs? Sadly, since this is a library computer, I am not allowed to access the catalogue bases. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A sound sample would be really great, so I think that it might affect the status. Most featured articles regarding music have samples. I might have the program to make the charts, but sadly, I have no idea how to make them. I also have a ton of assignments (from English and Writers' Craft) that bearly allows me time to breathe (I only made like 5 edits to Wikipedia in the last couple days). I might find some time inbetween assignments and work, but I don't know if it will be enough.
 * On a final note, I think the article's great. However, make sure that you think that it's great before you submit it. Try reading it aloud a couple times; that's the best way to spot "the arkward prose" that other objected on the last time. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll add a sample as you requested. No problem, but I might not have time to do it for a day or so.  User:Journalist is right though, most (if not all) of the recently promoted music related articles have a sample and if you don't include one, there is sure to be at least one person who objects. cheers Rossrs 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anytime is good, don't rush yourself. Thanks! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a sample. I took the very end of the chorus along with the verses that reference Bobby Womack and Babyface. As those lyrics were discussed in the article I thought that would be the best section to use, plus it gives a good indication of the musical and vocal style.  I hope you like it.  I wasn't sure where in the article to put it, so I added it after the discussion of the song itself, before the peripheral info such as chart stats.  But of course, it's easy enough to move if you don't think it should go there. Rossrs 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's quite excellent. And I'm glad you chose that portion of the song, which I had also been thinking. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasnt really rushed, but it probably could have spent a day or two at a second peer review. In any case, I think that its even better now, and i want to thank and congratulate you on a job well done. If it does not make it this time around, then we submit is for a third time (I'm very resilient). Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  15:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Eternal, I got your note regarding the status of the article. As you remember, I had held back support the first go round until a sound sample was added.  Rossrs added a very appropriate portion of the song, so I've offered my support as all my issues have been resolved from the prior FAC, and the song is no longer a "current event" (i.e., a Top 100 song).  There are no standards as to where in the article a song should be, but I perfer toward the bottom with its own heading so that it shows up in the above Table of Contents.  I did this in the Phil Collins article, which was modeled after the FA Marilyn Manson, although I note that other editors place it differently, so it comes down to your preference.  No matter, my support is given, and I wish you the best on your future articles. --Ataricodfish 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good luck to you as well! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Ive removed the image from the awards section. While it would be good to keep it, my experience with other editors regarding fair use images tells me that if the image is not vital to the article, and the article can prove its objective without the image, then it should be omitted. In this case, Image:WBTRMA.jpg does not say anything that the editors cannot write in the article. Its inclusion is therefore unnecessary, and would certainly hold off anymore objection on the grounds of "abusing fair use/pictures for decoration". Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but according to the official policy at fair use criteria "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". I know that it will "lack colour", but we have to compromise to meet the standards of others &mdash; especially when they have valid grounds to object (such as this).  Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * With that said, I'm not gonna remove it again &mdash; its up to you now. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response on my source issue! I still have a bit of a problem with it, please see the FAC. Staxringold 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to full support, thanks! Staxringold 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Actually that might be better. As long as the info's there, it's fine with me. Everyking 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One last "image" plea
There have been like 3 or 4 objections based on the images in the article, and we cannot ignore them any longer. The purpose of an FAC is to review your article and see if its ready to be called one of the best. Now, if 4 editors have issues with the images, then that means that we should really look into it, and as the FAC guideline says "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised".

The wikipolicies on fair use says that screenshots are to be used not for identification only, but for "critical commentary and discussion" on the issue. The last image at "award" is not even mentioned in the article &mdash;it serves no purpose than to decorate, and your assertion that it "adds colour to the article" proves this. I recently spoke to User:Ta bu shi da yu who is like the expert here on image use policy, and he gave me the go ahead on the single cover and the first two. The last image at "awards" is unnecessary, and is an abuse of the policy. Image:Mariah Carey We Belong Together chart trajectories.jpg has been added, and I think that this is colourful enough. If we remove this image at awards, then opposers might strike out their vote. If they don't, then we can assert that the images are used sparingly, and they add significantly to the content&mdash;after all, we can't discuss the music video without including a screencapture of it. I know its against your will, but please think about it. The process is all about compromising, and if we don't, we might find ourself with another failed nomination. Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e)  18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A copyright vio has been placed on the image description page of Image:Mariah Carey at the Teen Choice Awards, 2005.jpg, and the policy states that it has to be removed from the article until all is resolved. Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e)  18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

trajectories
Perhaps you are right, but I am still reluctant to accepting the terms. Do you by chance own a program that is capable of creating a line graph such as the one in Cool (song)? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have Microsoft Excel. CG 19:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible if you created a few chart trajectories on a line graph to insert into the article as an image? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the Image:Mariah Carey We Belong Together chart trajectories.jpg, but I just added the US and UK chart trajectories being a lot more significant than the New Zeland which you only gave me a 16-weeks numbers. As for the 0 number I'll fix it know. CG 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing to the We Belong Together article. I was just wondering if you could make a few minor touches to the image? A single cannot reach "0" on a chart, so it should be removed. Also, I'd appreciate it if you included the New Zealand chart trajectory. Otherwise, excellent. You deserve a barnstar. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that New Zealand is not a significant music market, but Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the facts. If someone is interested in the chart trajectory of the New Zealand market, and because we have the numbers, it should be included in the image. Nonetheless, thanks. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you give me more numbers about NZ's chart, but with only 13 weeks, it will look like a small line next to the US trajectory. CG 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, done, and thank you for the barnstar. Just one question, where do you get these numbers and charts details? CG 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The information comes from RIANZ itself. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, but who's RIANZ? CG 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg
At the moment I'd say no. What is going in the image and how does it demonstate whatever point is trying to be made. Once that is in the article the claim for fair use will rather more solid.Geni 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I'm sorry for pestering you. Please refrain from removing the image for now, I am going to attempt to incorporate more aspects of the single's music video in the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the fair use stronger now? I've made changes to the appropriate section in the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's pretty good. A screenshot that better fits with the text would probably be better but it is a lot more solid than many of our other fair use claims.Geni 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll keep you on alert if I ever require any image/screenshot help. Again, thanks! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just butting in here--Geni's quite right that the fair use claim is much stronger. I've advised HeyNow10029 to do something similar with his images (see my comments at his talk page--he posted at mine asking for advice). You're absolutely right to be raising questions about fair use, as I said at the noticeboard, but if you could work with HeyNow on this it would help diffuse the situation. Several of his images could be fair use, though they aren't right now. By the way, thanks very much for your comments at the FAC for Eric A. Havelock--I really appreciate it. Chick Bowen 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious to know
Could you tell me what program you used in order to create Image:Autobiography-weekly-performance.png? Thanks! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I created the graph using OpenOffice 2, then inverted the Y-axis labels using the GIMP. --Carnildo 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Is it possible if you could convert chart trajectories at an article into a graph? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Barn star!
I hereby award Bunchofgrapes a barnstar for erasing the vandalism left by the many IPs on my user profile page. Thank you! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It will go nicely to replace one I lost a while back! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You lost a barnstar? Is that possible? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, you-know-who (I believe you may edit from the same library) gave me one once, then a while later decided it wasn't to be mine after all, which I suppose was her perogative. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "prerogative"? I believe that you are referring to Hollow Wilerding? She no longer edits using the library references because of her impudence; it may have been her although it may not have been. Either way, congrats! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Johnson
Greetings, Eternal! You were kind enough to support the FAC candidacy of my article on Katie Holmes, for which I am grateful. I've put forward another nomination, Ohio's lieutenant goveror Bruce Johnson, and I would appreciate your comments at Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on this article per your comments on Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Mariah_Carey_at_the_Teen_Choice_Awards,_2005.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Mariah_Carey_at_the_Teen_Choice_Awards,_2005.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. HeyNow10029 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Name of the Rose
Thank you for your support vote at AID, but sadly no one else seems to be interested :-( Perhaps the book was too obscure for the AID nomination.

Perhaps next time I should nominate Teletubbies! :-D --BorgQueen 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, as I do believe that the article has potential. Perhaps you could resubmit it to AID someday, or, as you noted, nominate Teletubbies! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD
I was impressed by how you diffused things nicely here. Kudos for your cool attitude. -- Samir     (the scope)  02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Senators are totally going to get creamed... well, no. The Leafs will! We're terrible! Good luck to your team too! :P —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your guys played great against TB, Richardson was a good addition. Here's hoping for the playoffs.  Cheers --  Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season
I have made a comment to merge the content, can you change your vote please. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season
You originally voted to keep but then changed to merge. Could I ask you to consider to reverting to keep in the light of the new arguments put forward? There are currently three standing keep votes at Articles for deletion/2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season Hawkestone 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Actually I could use some help with the article I expanded about Australian actress Miranda Otto, I would really like to see it reach featured article status and am quite proud of it right now. Thanks for the help. Underneath-it-All 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. Havent spoken to you in a while; I've been thoroughly focussed on developing "We Belong together". I've read all the drama between you and the others, and frankly, I think it's pointless. Just ignore them, and keep your distance &mdash;that's the best way to keep things from escalating. Right now, just focus on bring WBT, KC and ABMB to featured status. If you need any help, you know I'm always available. BTW, even if WBT doesn't make it this time, there's always a third time, so I hope you won't be the least bit discouraged &mdash; I know I won't. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very encouraging! And yes, I am just going to ignore them &mdash; it certainly is pointless. I'm going to try to get ABMB up to featured status following WBT. Could you help a bit if you're not too busy? (Although I'm sure it will be difficult to find an example such as a sheet of music to consistently explain the structure.) Anyway, good luck to you as well! I'm online from the catalogue for the rest of the week at various times, I'll try to see if you've also accessed the WWW. See you for now! &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sheet music image. Actually, after searching, only two articles have turned up with sheet music images in them. What makes them fair use, however, is that they are released into the public domain&mdash; they are from Wikicommons eg: Image:My Belarusy instr.jpg. This is too risky, I think, especially because the source i got it from was selling the product. Also, other people will object on that ground. It's getting real hard trying to please everyone, though. Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e)  21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire
Hi there. Thank you so much for your support. Which images you think are not complying with their Fair use tags ? Amir85 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the images are violating Fair use, my comment was mainly concerning the number being displayed within the article: usually an article (even a lengthy article) has between two–ten images, but this one exceeds the limit. You should remove the ones you find most irrelevant. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mariah Carey
Do you need any help with the Mariah Carey article? I see that there's clearly an edit war occurring right now. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, many users including user:Get2nomey keep removing the sentence "However, her voice and lyrics are the subjects of frequent criticism" from the lead, when if you'd read the article you'd know that there are whole paragraphs dedicated to summarising criticisms of her work. Also, Billboard magazine's current methodology retroactively nullifies one of Elvis Presley's chart-toppers (see Talk:Mariah Carey for more on this), so to state that "she is tied with him for the most number-ones by a solo artist" is really misleading. Note: this message is only meant to explain the situation, I do not want you to "take sides" or become embroiled in an edit war, nor do I want you to feel you have to; I'm simply trying to maintain NPOV on the article. P.S. Thanks for removing the logo on the "Don't Forget About Us" screencap! I was meaning to do it myself but forgot. Extraordinary Machine 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, after editing We Belong Together for so long, I believe The Emancipation of Mimi is Carey's ninth and not tenth studio album? I'm not quite sure which article is accurate, however. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I read some reviews where Mimi is considered her tenth studio album, I'm guessing they count Merry Christmas among those. The studio album article doesn't say a whole lot, though. Extraordinary Machine 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give the article a quick read-through. I am not going to be taking sides considering I have a limited interest in Carey and am merely here to provide elucidation, but only if it is required. Anyway, you're welcome regarding the screenshot. By the way, Journalist would like to know if you want him to semi-protect the page? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another P.S. - as you know, an anon by the IP address 128.xxx... (it changes slightly every day) keeps adding to the lead a mention of how many Grammy Awards Carey has won, when it's misleading (the number she has won is not record-breaking or notable in any way) and POV. Again, just letting you know. Extraordinary Machine 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Similar to a previous request
I'm having another conflict with one of my professors. He states that the word "it" should not be capitalized within titles of stories, reports, etcetra. I am, once again, on the opposing end and do believe that "it" should be capitalized within titles. Please, could you clear the situation for me? I would appreciate it. Thanks. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on the Manual of Style, but normally yes. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another collaboration?
Are there any other articles you'd like to collaborate on following the eventual (that being tomorrow or next year!) featured article status of We Belong Together? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course!! I was thinking one of your choice (Kelly Clarkson, "ABMB" etc), though I have my eye on "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song)". Any suggestions? Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  04:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song). has been extensively-written, why don't we go ahead and fix it up? After that, we can do Always Be My Baby, if you want to. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the random barnstar, which is better than no barnstar. I am intrigued as to what path you followed to get to my user/talk page? Colin°Talk 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have Finlay McWalter's user and talk page on my watchlist, and when I went to check up on it, you were the last to make an edit to his talk. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, what do you want me to do? But one question: why do you want to retire from Wikipedia? CG 08:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand your request. CG 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cool (song)
Look, as I said to you previously, I don't care that you're DrippingInk/Winnermario/Hollow Wilerding/64.123... But at the same time it's not very good for your reputation here to remove discussions that present your IP and previous usernames in a negative light whilst posing as a disinterested third party who just happened to come across an article "while browsing", and start undoing other people's edits without explanation (and with misleading edit summaries) and tinkering with its talk page in stange and contra-guideline and policy ways. This isn't just about the policies and guidelines and my own opinion on the matter, but also how other editors see you. Very many editor do not think highly of you, and you may want this to change, but you can't do that unless you stop doing the same things wrong over and over again and trying to deliberately deceive people. When you do that, it sends the impression that you don't trust other editors, and that's one of the worst things you could do because they'll stop trusting you. I don't know...I feel like I'm stepping on eggshells whenever I'm discussing things with you, there's just a lot of history and so much "drama" and deception going on with you (not all of which you can help, but a lot of it you can do but don't). If you really are leaving (and not just pretending to) then I'm honestly sorry to see you go, but if you're not then please reconsider your behaviour and attitudes. Anyway, just wanted to get that out, okay, bye. Extraordinary Machine 01:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) I tend to agree. --MorwenofLossarnarch 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Great Bay Temple.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Great Bay Temple.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Pagra shtak  18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition to standard text: I'm not sure where you got this image from, but it's not a screenshot from Majora's Mask as you indicated in the fair use rationale; that's why I struck the game-screenshot license tag.  Pagra shtak  18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, because I had simply copied and pasted the rationale of fair use from the Termina map include in Majora's Mask. You are right, it was not the correct thing to do, but at the time I had been lazy to correctly filter the appropriate copyright status, which was certainly irresponsible. I don't have time right now, but when I come back online (which is likely going to be in about three hours), I will tidy the rationale. Please excuse this error and I hope you're not mad. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 19:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, I think I've corrected the rationale of fair use, but I am unsure of what copyright status it should be listed under. Thoughts? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I have no idea where you got the image, I have no possible way of knowing the copyright status. If you are unsure of the copyright status yourself, you shouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place.  Pagra shtak  21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An unwise idea, in my opinion. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be all-around. I have a pretty good memory of where I located the image, but as long as it is not found, I don't think it has to be removed from the article until, of course, the seven-day limit expires. Next time, please respond on my talk page so that I receive the "new messages" alert. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying; what are you referring to as an "unwise idea"? I think the image shouldn't be in the article myself, but that's another issue. So do you know the source and copyright status of the image?  Pagra shtak  23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I do know where it is located, but the link is disputed right now. I think the best idea would be to go ahead and delete it; I'll add another image in the future (that is not a map) with proper fair use rationale before even attempting to insert it into the article. Sorry that I caused all this trouble; I'm currently in a different time zone and my head is spinning as a result of lack of sleep. Additionally, sorry for troubling you. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask, is there an article in particular that you feel requires much-needed editing (I need to do something!)? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, just tag the image with and I'll get rid of it. As for articles that need help, I'd suggest picking one from Peer review.  Pagra  shtak  04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: "What You Waiting For?" image

 * No, I don't. (Or really know what you mean by 'location for others' :P) If you mean some uploaded pictures that were deleted, you should probably check the file history of the single's article. :) If there's nothing there, I'll be happy to upload some screens, like her in the house. :) &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you just can't take images off of a website and stick it on Wikipedia, whether they're owned by the RIAA or whatever. Either way, not really. &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can make another screen if you want. &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only make one tonight, unfortunately- I have to go to sleep soon. I'll get to work on it pronto. &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you go. I trust you can put it up yourself. I can't right now! Sorry!! &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly I cannot today. I had a power outage at my house, and I couldn't use it for very long, so can you wait till tomorrow? &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you go. It's not the best, but I guess it'll do. :P Anything else? &Oslash;&#345; &ecirc;   &#333;&#351; Go Italia!  20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea!
How dare you touch my edits ? Try any tricks like that again with me, and I'll have you banned so quickly your feet won't touch the ground. Your disruptive behaviour on this site is now irritating so many people, believe me, I'll be applauded. Now here's some free advice  young lady - Keep you head down, edit your "pop music" pages and stay out of my way, and the way of every other dedicated editor on this site. Is that quite clear? - Oh and don't think of removing this message, because I'm quite sure it will come immediately bouncing back - bit like you really! Giano | talk 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)