User talk:Monni95/Archive 2

Asterisks in sort keys
I cannot understand your insistence on using asterisks for a single purpose only. When I left it, Category:Asia stubs was perfectly consistent, with geographical divisions in one group, and thematic subdivisions in another. Changing them all (which you seem to have begun to do - I didn't realise that when I reverted Category:China stubs) seems like a waste of time. I am not aware of any standard about what prefix to use for what kind of subcategory, and none is listed at WP:CAT. Can you point me to a guideline where it is stated? --Stemonitis 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... It's what stub sorters use. It has nothing to do with general categorization. Monni 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but why must it be one way round, and not the other? There was nothng wrong with the old system; there is no reason why geographical subcategories must precede thematic subcategories (or vice versa). Consistency between different categories is not as important as consistency within a category. Am I right in thinking that "'*' prefix is for subregions. ' ' prefix is for subtopics" is your personal choice, rather than a generally agreed principle? (I am also uncertain that you should have characterised my edit as a "bad faith revert", but I'm prepared to let it lie.) --Stemonitis 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope... It wasn't my idea, it was observation I made when I browsed through hundreds of stub categories. Monni 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a baffling edit
Your edit to the mrTimothy page on March 29 is a bit confusing, as you replaced the page with the content from the Quistis Trepe article. Is this an unfortunate error or is there some hitherto unknown connection between mrTimothy and Quistis?

Thanks. Bhamv 13:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't replace anything, but most likely someone before me messed up the article totally and I only tried to fix it so much that it would be readable again. I don't mind people reverting over my edits if someone before me has messed up the article. Monni 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at the edit comparison in my previous message... it's clear you DID replace the article with the Quistis Trepe information. The version on the left discusses the musician mrTimothy while the version on the right is about Quistis.


 * However, this is probably a moot point now anyway, since the changes have been reversed and it's pretty clear any such edit was done accidentally. That's all I was really wondering about, so thanks for clearing it up.


 * Cheers. Bhamv 16:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno why the server would show up that kind of diff... That is plain wrong, but I guess the case is resolved now. Monni 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowyze
This is to let you know that the article on Shadowyze has been targeted for deletion and needs support.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lojah (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Please make your mind up! :)
You've edited The KLF 3 times now changing categories, can't you decide what you want to do and do it one edit? :) --kingboyk 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... I did make my mind and I decided to categorize by nationality and genre(s). What comes to making it in 3 edits was just matter of counting if all of those 3 "new" categories would be big enough. If toolserver would be up-to-date, it would have been easier to do it in single edit. Monni 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Roo'Ra Stub
Dear Monni1995:

I’m afraid I’m having some difficulty understanding why a “specialist” in South Korean dance music would want to continue re-posting information that the average Korean teenager during the ‘90s would have found preposterously incorrect. Okay, maybe you’re using “specialist” in an entirely different sense, or perhaps your expertise begins with the 21st century —but traditionally the term implies a certain depth, as well as breadth, of knowledge in the field. —And since Roo’Ra was one of the two or three seminal groups in the history of South Korean dance music, maybe you can understand my skepticism here…

Regarding the Roo’Ra information itself: I recognized much of the material that I originally saw in the stub as having been lifted verbatim from a single Korean-language website —a site that could not conceivably be called a valid informational site on Korean music, and one in which the material in general is quite incomplete and often unreliable. I was appalled to see that the information taken from this site constituted nearly the entire stub.

Before going further, let me explain the basis of my concern here: my knowledge of this group is both first-person and time-specific. I lived in Seoul during most of Roo’Ra’s existence; I saw them perform numerous times; and I knew them off-stage as well. I met all six of them (including Shin Jungwan & Michael Romeo) at one time or another. I was quite close to one of them for over four years —and thus was actually privy to more inside info about the group than I really cared to know…

When I originally perused this piece, it was only because I knew the group and its members. I neither had, nor have, any intention of spending my time editing Wikipedia —but when I discovered that an entry concerning people who’d been my friends consisted mainly of incomplete & inaccurate information —and information that was copied from a shoddy source, at that— well, I just couldn’t remain silent. Thus my efforts to correct what I know to be incorrect.

I have an additional concern: do you speak ? I would assume not, otherwise you’d know that the literal translation of  is  —with the English transposition being  (or possibly ). If you do speak or read the language, then please explain how you derive “Broken” from . And if you don’t, then how can you possibly argue about this with someone who does? Translation is not a matter of checking sources —it is what it is. Sometimes interpretation is possible, of course —particularly in a language as ambiguous as — but not to the extent of creating something that doesn’t exist in the text itself.

By the way, googling is not an acceptable research validation. If you have a genuine desire to verify my Roo’Ra information —and I hope you do— then simply check out the  site, the Tinpan  site, or even any of the more established commercial KorPop sites. I can give you additional sources if you feel you need them. Or I could give you names and phone numbers…or even videos (I have one, for example, of a Korean talk show in ‘96 that includes a segment on the replacement of Kim Jihyun with Michael Romeo —obviously an unimpeachable source on Mikey J’s membership in the group)…and if nothing else, check out the album covers: current members are displayed on 8 of Roo’Ra’s 12 albums—and you will find all six of them there at various times during their respective tenures.

Come on, this isn’t dissertation-defense here —dealing with a stub like this is hardly top-of-the-academic-food-chain stuff. So please: check the sources, ease up on the control thing a bit, and let’s do some justice to something that we both care about. I thank you, and Roo’Ra thanks you…

Sincerely,

Wattscooke wattscooke@juno.com


 * Just post direct links to online articles that agree with your information and I'm sure no-one will revert them anymore (except maybe vandalists). My specialist status comes from being credited journalist and co-founder or founder of several music related sites. What is my main concern is that Wikipedia isn't one of so-called "accurate" sources, Wikipedia is mainly based on verifiability. A factual article without mention of original creditable sources isn't any better than fictional article with adequate "shoddy" sources. Monni 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a little greeting to make your day


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trampton 06:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Mikey J. Romeo's membership in Roo'Ra
What is wrong with you?

You claimed googling returned no result for Mikey J. Romeo —and as proof cited the maniadb.com site. Well, I just googled him, and the first site listed was the maniadb —specifically a page on the album "Finale." Besides listing Romeo as the writer/composer of two of the songs in the album, the album cover itself is displayed —and there's Mikey J, along with Sang-min, Young-wok, & Rina. If, god forbid, you should actually listen to the album, then you could hear him singing as well.

I find it outrageous that you continue to niggle about sources, when you yourself provided the initial material for this stub by simply plagarizing it from a web page —and an unreliable one at that. If this is representative of the quality of your work, I suggest in the future you confine yourself to material that you know something about, or find something else entirely to do with your time. I'm tired of this —and you make it increasingly difficult to be civil about it…

Wattscooke 04:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Wattscooke


 * Here's the facts:
 * as far as I could look things up, maniadb is the only site that mentions "Mikey J. Romeo"
 * even maniadb doesn't list Mikey J. Romeo in lineup of that album
 * It does however mention Mike Fentross as member of the lineup, which suggests serious inconsistency in maniadb content
 * One site with no other sites to backup facts isn't enough to make "fact" verifiable.

Monni 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason, even though the userbox has placed the category at the bottom of the page, you have not been recognised in category:WikiProject Malta members, and I can't figure why. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 10:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked and the server is pretty overloaded, so I presume it takes few hours or some days until it gets all categories updated. This kind of weird behaviour is pretty common with templates as server needs to parse twice all pages where template is used to know which categories the articles belongs to. This can take several hours when there is lots of changes. Monni 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fonts
Hi, any idea why the fonts for "simplified/traditional" and "simplified" are showing up differently for the others in Template:Chinesename? Badagnani 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Most likely because of lang. Monni 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your template
Heh I was wondering why you didn't respond. I accidentally posted the comment in your sandbox talkpage. Do you mind if I copy your good code of your Chinese template over to Template:Chinesename?


 * I've been pretty busy with my personal life, so I haven't had much time for working with Wikipedia. Like I said originally, if there is no clear objection, it should be fine to replace after waiting a week. Monni 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also been trying my own template with alternate names, but it is certainly not working. I hope I can at least try starting doing alternate names with your "good" code. Benjwong 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most important thing I noticed while making my version was that | doesn't work inside conditional code, you need to use ! instead. Monni 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Emma Morton-Smith
A "" template has been added to the article Emma Morton-Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 03:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Coralogo-w.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coralogo-w.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Malta related article at Articles for deletion/St John's Square
Dear member of WikiProject Malta, I'd like to invite you to participate in an ongoing Article for Deletion debate about St John's Square in the capital of Malta. We'd like your input about whether the article should stay and go (and if you want to expand the stub, that would be great too!) All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I've spotted you at Last.fm as well, but I was wondering if you'd like to join what would be a Chinese popular music (i.e. PRC/ROC/HK) task force under WP:China. Seeing as you are an editor for an Asian music news site, that's even better. I've also seen you around a few artist pages, so yeah, give me a shout if you're interested. So far it's just me and Arsonal; if you know other people who might want to join in, then yeah, let me know on my talk page. I've also made a rough guideline for conventions and goals of the proposed Task Force if you're interested in reading that. Pandacomics 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Moulann - bridge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Moulann - bridge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VIVA Records logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:VIVA Records logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of B.A.D
An editor has nominated B.A.D, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of B.A.D
A tag has been placed on B.A.D requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Song Kwang Sik
A tag has been placed on Song Kwang Sik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Butterfly Effect (group)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Butterfly Effect (group), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Falling In Love
I have nominated Falling In Love, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Falling In Love. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Digital moodz
A tag has been placed on Digital moodz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Nova Weaver (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Wong
Hello. The Teresa Wong article you contributed to is now up for deletion - unfairly I feel. Please check out its talk page and see what you think about it. Much appreciated. Cyclotron (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cool (group)


The article Cool (group) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. badmachine (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)