User talk:Kurt Shaped Box/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 21:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

excuse me....
Why did my attempts to execute some of the proposed changes get reverted? Please give me a reason. I'm trying to clean up the memes sections, since they are not all needed. Is the information encyclopedic? Not really. hfool 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IP Multicast
I found a source: a deal of it comes from here. I've edited the copyvio tag and listing accordingly. Tearlach 00:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I googled it but was unable to find anything. Any tips? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Here is the Deletionist's Barnstar for extensive work on VfD's.



Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks very much! :) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not a Troll
And neither was the article I was presenting to Wikipedia...but dont worry... I'll be back, (lol) best wishes in any event to ya, Cathy (Cathytreks(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

To label pop music has pop-punk (which does not exist... most contend that pop-punk should be labeled as either pop, alternative, or ska... depending on rhythem) is very misleading and is provide false information about the punk genre. Even though the Avril page is not the defining punk page, when read in context, is is essencially lying about the sound of punk for anyone who has heard Ms. Lavigne's music. Natsuki 03:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Pop punk
As we all know, the article on pop punk is riddled with POV edits (i.e. vandalism). Defiling of that article must stop. As the vandalism is mostly concentrated on the "list of notable bands", I have two suggestions.
 * We remove the list altogether (as inherently POV)...
 * ... or we split the article and make a separate list called List of pop punk bands or something along those lines. (There already exists an article named List of musicians of Pop punk, but that one is worthless)

I favor the first option. Let me know what you think. Punkmorten 21:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open a discussion. Punkmorten 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
For your help with the Cherry person. I dunno if it was you who got her blocked - but - I am glad someone took action against all this constant putting-back of information that can not possibly be verified as true - "original research", I think, is what Wikipedia calls it. I am outraged that this kind of thing was online since August, and she was only caught when she started spreading the pointlessly attention-grabbing rumours that she was dead/not dead to attract attention. Vulturell 05:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you nothing better to do
Than harrass me. I created that image, get a life and leave me be.

Recreation of previously-deleted article...
''I noticed that you deleted Cherryrain earlier today after I speedy tagged it. Just a quick note to let you know that User:Cherryrain has re-created this page again, this time at CherryRain. This user has also made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As an admin, I wondered if you were aware of any specific policies for dealing with users who constantly recreate articles that have been deleted per AFD? By my reckoning, this is the third time that 'Cherryrain' or possible sockpuppets thereof have recreated this page - the original CrystalCherry article is now protected from recreation because of this. Thanks very much for your help. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)''
 * There's a couple schools of thought. Protecting the article with a deletedpage template usually works best when there are multiple people (actual people, not just different addresses or user names) re-creating it.  If it's just one person, as seems to be the case here, I think it's better to let her re-create at the same article title, then tag and speedy it.  This minimizes the chance that she'll log on from a different IP or username, re-create the article elsewhere, and not get noticed.  She'll get bored eventually. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Wrong
It is sourced and it on a Radio Brodcast that you can see on you own if you want to. It's an occult oriented show might i add. Where they make clear refferences to her and play her music. And they are posting an interview soon. So put that in your pipe and smoke it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah the Proof
LanCe and Graal is an occult online radio program. They have recently sent, CrystalCherry a chance to appear live on the air. She chose to go on live during Yule. But she had no problem allowing to play her single Crystal Clear. They even talked about the Wiccans in her age group. They lable them Teeny Witches. What you don't believe is that she is an actual artist. Well, this proves it. Her interview with all the details, from the fueds to the hacking will be up. Here is the site Radio Program Go to episode 11, that's the one she is metioned in. The gave the wrong name. They close the show with her song, and corrected what they said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Music category guidelines
Hi, I noticed you CfD'd Category:Avril Lavigne albums and Category:Avril Lavigne singles. Just thought I'd let you know that the guidelines on WP:ALBUMS and WikiProject Songs suggest these categories should exist. See WP:ALBUM and WikiProject_Songs. Those pages also contain these notes, respectively:


 * Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released a single album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).


 * Note: If a song is by an artist that has had only a couple of noteworthy songs don't create a category for them; just categorise by year (and genre if relevant).

There is no guideline on either of those pages, or at WikiProject Music, that a higher-level category with an artist's name should exist (ie, Category:Avril Lavigne, but if you're going to have Foo Albums and Foo Singles, it does seem logical to have a parent Foo. There is no consistent practice on this, for example Category:Ben Folds albums is well-populated but without a parent Category:Ben Folds. Since there is no guideline I guess it could go either way but I don't see the harm in it myself.

just thought you might find this useful. cheers. --pfctdayelise 01:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Crystalcherry
Crystalcherry has been recreated, I believe it lacks notability as per the previous AfD. I got involved in this when User:Cherryrain went "Opps", twice on Avril Lavigne and then requested my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RoyBoy#Roy_Oops.__I_need_your_help. assistance] after I reverted. I suspect this user has been biten/slighted by the AfD, and is not acting entirely in good faith. Cherryrain mentioned User:Drini's agreement for a rewrite; I'm not optimistic that will be sufficient to satisfy all users involved in this issue. (suggest replies/discussion should be directed to Talk:Crystalcherry) (CC'd to multiple users) - RoyBoy 800 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely outrageous. Who does this Crystal Cu think she's dealing with? I am just going to delete every single part of her article until she's able to produce even a shred of proof to any of it being true.Vulturell 07:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You Knew!
You knew what you were doing, you knew, and you wanted us all to be a buz because it improves your ratings, it improves your market share, and it lines your pockets.

CrystalCherry
The article Crystal Cherry has been recreated, although it is currently under copyright violation surveillance. Vulturell 04:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:AvRiL lAvigNe (141).jpg
So, I don't disagree with your argument with respect to our lack of fair use justification for this image... However, it is inaccurate to state that the source isn't provide as it is pretty clear with from the picture where we can find the copyright holder (and for us, thats what counts... We're only willing to tolerate the URL the content was lifted from in most cases, what we really need to know is who the copyright holder is and how we can get ahold of him). Metal based robots get to make mistakes in tagging like this, but us meat based ones don't. I think what you should do is tag the image with fairusedisputed remove it from the article it's used in (and mention where it was used in the image page) and tag it with or-fu. The end result will probably be the same (image deleted) but you have less people complaining about abuse of process. Thanks for giving a darn about the copyright status of our images.--Gmaxwell 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - bad choice of tag and genuine mistake. :) I've re-tagged the image as you suggested. Replying here, as per your talk page. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, no skin off my back.. as I said, I agreed. Just don't want anyone else yelling at you. Thanks!--Gmaxwell 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

why did you revert that page
Mandy Moore, what's up with that. Do elaborate. Parys 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, that has nothing to do with removing sourced info just because a fan doesn't like it. All i added was info that anyone can check out with google in seconds. Parys 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that was a mistake and it IS from a magazine and that is proven. However the issue goes deeper than an image. They (Mandy Fans) don't like the fact on her criticism, and she has gotten alot. And it, like many other musician's articles, can't be just ignored because one doesn't like it. Parys 07:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Parys Sylver
Hello, i just want to understand why you feel the article should be deleted. I sourced as much as i could. I feel if we work together we can make a better article. Firegirl223 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if this person is in a feature film, which as i explained is proven, and IMDB takes awhile to be updated, sometimes MONTHS. And the "free press releases" does not mean this person is not notable. I personally don't want to sit there and work on it by myself. I however disagree with your statement. Firegirl223 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You may indeed be right only time will tell wheither this article survives. I think he is an awesome author personally. I am not sure if you have read The Color of Silence but if articles with way less importants last i see no reason why this one can not.Firegirl223 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you need to prove the "person" in the picture is indeed Parys Sylver than just veiw his site and you can see yourself.Firegirl223 00:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hii......
hii....

I saw your user name and liked it lot!!!! its one of the best user names i've seen... and i thought i'd drop in and say hi... Nirvana's one of my favourite bands of all time.....i am in a band myself... we recorded a single just recently..... heres the link... listen to it if you want.... []

Anyways... see ya..

Jayant, 17 Years, India|(My Talk) 12:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

MCR
Just my opinion...but if MCR is a part of the punk revival, then I'm a monkey's tranny uncle. Haha. Anyway, I posted something on tha pop punk discussion page regarding the one and only way to help stop these band list wars...comment if you'd like. Madangry 00:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex, Gulls n Gout
Hi KSB, Sex has nothing to do with this communication, it just sort of looked good as a title. Our local vet (Cape Town, South Africa) tells me there is no problem with feeding gulls, but he says use clean food - bird botulism (type E) is apparently a common killer. The difficulty is the nuisance the birds can cause, and he says fatness in a wild bird is ok as long as it still flies well. If they get in toxins, their kidneys apparently can go, and then they do get gout (I never realised that). And then I see that asian vulture are dying in large number due to gout caused by diclofenac (voltaren) causing renal damage - that farmers give their livestock in India for fever and aches. The birds ingest it when the animal becomes carrion. --Seejyb 06:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Budgerigar
Hey, nice to see you around Wikipedia besides on the Science Reference Desk. =) Thanks for putting the fact template on the sermony comment in budgerigar; I did one better and deleted it outright. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bird identification
I saw your picture on the reference desk. Bird identification questions I *strongly* suggest you send to user:Jimfbleak, our resident bird expert. Raul654 05:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kurt, I have lots of bird ID material, but for most species it only covers fledged birds - gull chicks all look much the same to me I'm afraid. jimfbleak 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Science
I answered at the reference desk. As far as I know sending people or anything else living in the mail (willing or not) is illegal, but you'd have to check with the post office to be sure. We do actually have an article called Human mail, believe it or not. - Mgm|(talk) 19:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of sending a Kurt shaped box in the mail and if so, what does that shape look like? On a personal note, I don't recommend UPS, if you do use it, keep some room in the box for food supplies. ;) - Mgm|(talk) 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You rule
Hi! White Light/White Heat is a really great album. Probably in my top 3 favorites of all time. It was Kurt's favorite Velvet Underground album. Rock! NIRVANA2764 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore
Although it was originally submitted by Parys, it appears to not be a hoax. See (you have to register to view the magazine scans) Mad Jack 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are right - so thanks for noticing that. Weird that the magazine made such an error. However, the paragraph that you deleted had some relevant and properly sourced info, so I ought to restore part of it. BTW, I am going to submit this to FA status very soon. Do you have any thoughts on possible improvements/etc.? Appreciated Mad Jack 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the info on Slummin should definitely be kept off. But there was some other info from other sources in that paragraph that I may restore. I really, really, really want to keep that pic in the header, and I've done as much as possible to justify it - so I guess we will see. Mad Jack 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW
I am not so sure about this personal life section that "someone" added to Trevor Blumas. It seems to be going in the same direction as the previous stuff we remove and is poorly sourced. (I presume this is the person whose edits you were going after) Mad Jack 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What to do next? Delete it - well, I just did. Biographies of living people advises us to delete unsourced negative content immediately. The source cited, aside from being irreputable, did not support the paragraph's content. I'm guessing FireGirl has no legit source - so this will have to be deleted over and over. Mad Jack 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I guess they decided if they picked someone more famous to do this to it wouldn't get through all the other crap out there about them. The sourcy is iffy, and said nothing regarding what the paragraph claimed. In fact, it seemed to say Blumas was the cyber-stalker, and it cited its sources as a message board or something. As for being bold - I describe my editing style as "fast and furious" (ahem) Mad Jack 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)