User talk:IHelpWhenICan/Archive 8

AUBREY
I know you really liked Danity Kane when they were out, and I'm just letting you know I made a sandbox for Aubrey's upcoming debut single (that comes out Tuesday). I love this chick so much. It'd be great if you could help out with it. I want her to start getting some good articles on here. Her main article is pure trash! ℥nding · start 04:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm usually the same way. Here's a link It's an early version from what I've read, the final version is changed a bit. I currently have it on repeat. It's fireeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!! ℥nding · start 04:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * :O YOU JUST DID NOT!! This song is my current jam. Ooh! You're birthdays Tuesday? How exciting! :) Mine's later this month. ;) Oh, one of one Diddy's whores? Dawn Richard! Maybe I will later. ;) ℥nding · start 04:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It came out that long ago? I never realized that. It was probably changed up a lot then. xD And I was just kidding. Just the whole Diddy - Dirty Money thing annoys the hell outta me. Do they even sing? It's just like they're there. ℥nding · start 04:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Awards and prizes/Grammy Awards task force
Welcome to the task force! You have done great work, so feel free to contribute to the task force (especially with the design and set up) in however you see fit. Thanks so much! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you are inviting others to the project as well. Fantastic! We currently have four lists at FLC, so the project is off to a great start. Feel free to use the task force's talk page if you have any design questions or comments. I believe all articles have been tagged... now we just need the statistics chart to appear on the main page so that we can see the assessment. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how to get the statistics chart to appear on the main page of the task force? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD notifications
Please don't notify people of AFDs. It can nearly always be taken as a violation of WP:CANVASS. You need to be especially wary when you invite someone like me (with a 95% delete history) to an AFD that you started. It's virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that the reason I was invited was to help you secure a delete result.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Template
Okay, click on my last dozen or so contributions, this is to be a new standard - just like book and wikiproject. You can take these out if you like, but you'll have to take out book and wikiproject also. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want me to. If you work with me, I can work with you! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Also, feel free to update or make any changes to Book:Kylie Minogue where they may need be, as you very much know this subject. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue personal life article?
Hey there, Im guessing your also a fan of Kylie Minogue I think? Anyway, I was only wondering if you think it is suitable to include a article for a Personal Life article on Kylie Minogue's page. There hasn't been one for a while, so I was just suggesting or asking. Thanks :) GirlsAlouud 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Grammy task force
I will, but I want to read some Grammy articles and read more on just how they are structured. I've never edited such an article before. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI: Someone removed your "under construction" tag from the task force's main page since no edits were made for 6 days. Feel free to revert the removal if you still have design plans. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Brown (American entertainer)
Hello, IHelpWhenICan. As someone who edits/looks after articles of musical artists, would you mind weighing in on the Talk:Chris Brown (American singer) discussion? It's about whether or not Brown's domestic violence case should be divided into its own section. We desperately need other editors weighing in on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce/GA1
I believe everything has been addressed. If you still have issues, please bring them up at the GA review page. Thanks for reviewing the article! Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fever
Do you have any information that could go in the Fever background section? I am really worried about that. It is the weakest part of the article and the only thing holding me back from nominating it for GA. I have tried, but either I'm not good at searching for stuff, or it has all come down with link rot. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  17:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Irresistible"
Hi IHelpWhenICan! I've nominated the above song article for an FA (third nom). If you're free, could you go through it? Your comments are always welcome. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay then :) Novice7 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Beyonce project.
Sorry I feel really bad now... I didn't pay attention to the exact reviewer just to the fact that the name appeared on the list of people involved in the Beyonce project. The main issue was that previously a large number of Bey articles were prepared for GA and then reviewed for GA, both by people involved in the project and the resultant articles were a real mess. It was decided through logic and some discussion that only people completely uninvolved with the project SHOULD review articles relating to the project. That removes a good sense of bias. In no way was it suggested that all members of the project are Bey fans and would review the article unfairly. Lego suggested that you step down and allow someone completely unrelated to review the project though you could offer some 'other user comments'. Either way this is a difficult review because of the sheer size and so it really does need the involvement of probably more than one user. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible. I'd expect the review to be reasonably lengthy due to the article's size. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Hey!
I expanded the "Critical Reception", I also put each section for the "Music Video" also. Is that bad? GirlsAlouud 04:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to ask, but If I say in the "Edit Summary", I write something like /* Music Video adding information */. Do I need to say more like /* I am just adding a reception, background and sypnosis article underneath music video */. Im just abit stuck. Thanks. GirlsAlouud 03:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!
Thank you so much for helping me out. Btw, can you fix this too? Novice7 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, well.. Isn't it a bit too "bright"? I don't know much about pictures, lol. Novice7 (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 05:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:
Well, I'm just not so sure it is fake. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 0 I'm so sorry. I just remembered. *sigh* I'm becoming more and more detached from Wiki with all these other things. i still can't believe I didn't remember that... -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey!: Thanks Mate
Hey! Yeah I dont mind at all. I know... my page is amazing aye LOLZ. Yeah sure I would never known that the page will be usful but hey theres always a second chance. Thanks anyway :). GirlsAlouud (talk &middot; &#32;contribs} 03:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kylie
Looks good! Another single release? :O I'm shocked! Not a good choice though..... ℥nding · start 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

House of Windsor
Ah yes, telling the truth about the House of Windsor is vandalism. Anybody who has studied the subject knows that they had to change their name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor because otherwise the British people would have realised that their very royal family was part of the same family in which they were fighting against in World War II and subsequently would have had them removed. You're ill informed revert, perverts the truth in favour of a deeply biased and monarchist version of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.23.19 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "I'm American!!! I couldn't give two fucks about the House of Windsor in the long run." That's all good and well but begs the question "Why did you bother to revert the page in the first place then?"


 * I don't truly believe that argument, seems to me like an excuse. Lots of the rest of that article is also unsourced and there seems to be no problem with those parts. If you "dont give a fuck about the House Of Windsor", I don't feel you are in a qualified position to revert an article about the House of Windsor to be honest.


 * "Ok... Portions of the article are unsourced. So you basically want to make it worse and add more unsourced material? That's great, thanks. You know what, this is so weird. In my beginning days here at Wikipedia, I asked the same question to established editors, "How can you revert on an article you don't know a lot about?" And 2 (almost 3) years later, I now know the answer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out when an editor (or as we call you lot "IP's") is trying to climb the Reichstag. I promise you. If you find a good source, your material can be included in the article, I really don't give a damn. But I will not have you shitting on Wikipedia policy just because you do not like your monarchy."


 * Firstly, I don't see how adding a generally regarded fact could make the article worse. I do have a source from a book. However, I doubt you would consider it a "good source" because you need to find an excuse to disallow it. You incorrectly assume I dislike the British monarchy, that couldn't be further from the truth. Also I'm not "shitting on Wikipedia policy", my issue is that the article is missing a key fact as to why they changed their family name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.23.19 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Blah, Blah, Blah... Where is the source? That's all you need! That's what I've been trying to tell you for the past 5 minutes. If you still don't understand, then I don't know what to do. I'm done with this argument."


 * I find "Blah, Blah, Blah" rather rude and as your page says "Be polite" I think you're a hypocrite. If you didn't want this argument, you shouldn't have rolled back my amendment and you would have saved me and yourself the hassle. Instead, you chose to be an unnecessary twit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.23.19 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I am being quite rude. The reason why is because I am trying to go about my usual work and my message bar keeps going off every 30 seconds because some IP is all pissy that his unsourced edit got removed. I stand by my decision to remove the edit. I honestly don't know why you are arguing with me anymore. If you do your homework on me, you will know that I primarily edit music articles. I don't dive into history. That was the 3rd edit that I have ever made on the House of Windsor page. I don't give a rats ass about them. I removed your edit because it was unsourced. And if you can't get that through your thick skull, I cannot help you. I am indifferent. I'm actually amazed that you think someone actually cares that much about the issue (but then again, someone had to create the article...). Leave me alone. Cheers."
 * If you don't want an argument, why do you continue to reply to my messages? Are you stupid? You seem to be annoyed at yourself that you have allowed this argument to carry on for so long. Again if you "don't give a rats ass about them", leave the article alone, let somebody who does care about them take charge. You're an arrogant and rude individual and that clearly makes you an unsuitable moderator in my opinion. It's nothing to be proud of. If I were an admin on Wikipedia, I would strip you of your moderator privileges.

Re: Aphrodite track list
Usually, for the producers section, their full name should always be credited, and the name they are best known as (for example Cutfather should be linked, rather than Mich Hansen.) Just think of it as the same as it'd be for the singles template. And as for the star, I fixed it. ℥nding · start 20:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd report that IP if I were you. ℥nding · start 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm like that all the time. My stomach drops everytime I see that orange bar. xD Just ignore him, and if he replies to you again, report him. I think you probably could have handled it a bit better, I mean, "I'm American!!! I couldn't give two fucks about the House of Windsor in the long run" was not needed. ℥nding · start 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. I haven't ran into any (yet, thankfully), but I can understand the madness of it. I see he left another message, I've warned him. ℥nding · start 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing?. The person you've been talking to never even edited that article. ℥nding · start 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I was thinking "what the hell is going on this, this guy never even edited that page!" Kinda dumb though, I mean, commenting on your page with a new IP LOL. You should report for sockpuppetry, and get 69.156.152.195 blocked indefinitely. ℥nding · start 21:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

re User:Rodhullandemu
Unless you are anxious to place a template on your own page, I strongly suggest that you make sure that you do not place templates on pages where they are not required or wanted. For your guidance, if an editor does not already have such a template on their pages and they have been blocked for a while it is because it is not necessary - also, a quick look at the length and breadth of their contribution history will indicate whether the account has been a net negative or positive to the project - and therefore placing it is an act of bad faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as an additional comment, - user Rod hull and emu was and is a respected valued contributor (with a couple of issues)- moving forward imo we are looking to assist this long term experienced user to return to beneficial contributions to the project than we are desirous of labeling his account with indefinitely rejected templates. Please don't feel slighted by this issue as it is complicated and includes long term emotive detail. Although templates are beneficial in some cases, labeling in this case is detrimental to progress, best regards Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the issue, and want to add my thoughts that while we understand that the action was intended as being useful, it is not helpful in this case. Per WP:BURO, there are no rules about exactly when a template should or should not be applied to a user talk page, and those familiar with the background have clearly thought that a template was not required, since none has been added despite many editors knowing about the situation. Please just drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the above. I have also struck - but not retracted, although you may if you wish - my comments that may have been considered a threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

the-saturdays.co.uk
that's good. but according to rules... fansites or sites that collate links to other sources are not reliable. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had the time I would, but the one or two i checked didn't have an explicit source or just referenced a tweet which is not good enough really. =) &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When I say confirmed... I mean a 'tour' said to happen in several months time with no confirmed start date, no name etc. is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)