User talk:Wolfer68/Archive 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you feel you have recieved this warning in error, please contact me here. Thanks and Happy Editing,  D u s t i talk 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed running times, and altered some of the names. If this was not vandalism, let me know and I will be happy to remove what I have done, and revert back to your edits. Happy Editing,  D u s t i talk 19:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edits. If you need anything else, let me know. Happy Editing,  D u s t i talk 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories
"Mac" is used regardless of how the person's surname is spelt, to ensure "Mc" and "Mac" are grouped together surname wise when the category is sorted. One Night In Hackney 303  22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the way we group the categories. One Night In Hackney  303  22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Please do not revert my change. Links are required for full dates in order to help with different users preferences. --Vergency (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Billboard 200 boxes
I have read your suggestion on my talk page about succession boxes on number-one albums. I think that it is a good idea, and I agree that so many boxes for one album are unneccessary. Your examples show the dates of each run that the specific album had in one box, however the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" boxes only show the albums that preceded and succeeded that album at the number-one spot on its first run, and do not show what albums preceded and succeeded the album on its later runs. Information on albums that preceded and succeeded each individual run could be shown in one box, but this still has the problem of being redundant. I updated John Denver's Greatest Hits to show an example of this, and let me know on my talk page if you like this. Thanks.--Classicrockfan42 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. Thank you for the tip.--Classicrockfan42 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re page: La Vie En Rose (Donna Summer)
...which you just recdirected. I suggest that you move the entire contents of the original page to page La Vie En Rose - and that includes infobox, bio, tracklisting and cover image. I naturally wouldn't want to accuse you or anyone else of making unconstructive edits....

Regards

Dreamer.se (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

Good.

Thanks in advance.

Dreamer.se (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)dreamer.se

RfD nomination of Chronology (album by Bryn Haworth)
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Yamara ✉  13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Sockpupperty
Have you put in a CheckUser request yet? If not, consider it. You may be able to get evidence to prove the abuse and see if longer blocks may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gloria Estefan's Forthcoming World Tour
Thank you Mr. Wolfer68 for nominate my article, although is not a nomination I like, I should ask you for another chance???. The information for this article is coming and is still not complete, give me two or three weeks more to finish the article, and if you can and if you like also, could you help me with the grammar, I know I'm not good writing, but I beg you for assistance, thanks for your time and for read my article. (Charlie White (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)).

Thanks for your information and I really understand!, thanks for your help and I will try to improve it when i get more information, but thanks for all! Have a nice day! (Charlie White (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Greatest Times of All
I added a source for Slow This World's Down's chart position to Greatest Times of All. Eric444 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Greatest Times of All
The three sources are fansites (one, being on Geocities, is especially verboten), and the third is an issue of RPM. Even if it did produce chart singles, the album is not the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging Nationals all time and expos list
Hi. There been a series of discussion on merging the Expos and the nationals together on the main article and consensus has never been reached, this being said, it has been accepted that they both deserve separate pages. This is why i undid your edit to Washington Nationals all-time roster, because they both deserve to be separate. There no reason to mix the two teams rosters together. In your edit summary, you pointed out that other teams records are merged, this post  explain why that's not always the case. Thanks! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, i accidentally gave you the wrong link. I meant this one Talk:Montreal_Expos/Archive_1 but there has been other discussions at other times. But anyways, I would support a new page that lists both organizations all time list but i think each should have individual ones. I think the  page should be kept to only nationals. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!!
Thanks for fixing my article on When They Was Fab - a Tribute to the Solo Beatles. Could you please help fix the articles I wrote on other Top of the Poppers albums? Retro Agnostic (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Manny
I apoologize. On the dodgers site it said #28. I was unaware of that. My apologies. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Two-part phrasal verbs
I noticed you claimed that flew over (as in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) was a two-part phrasal verb. I'm a bit confused on how flew over could be a two-part phrasal verb, as all prepositions that follow verbs need not be adverbs (i.e. "Come to Me", "To Be with You"). I really fail to see how the over in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is an adverb, as it appears to me that over is quite clearly being used as a preposition. The same reasoning could be used on the Someone to Watch Over Me articles as well. Can you explain your reasoning? Xnux  the   Echidna  00:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, the preposition "over" at least three different meanings: the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest articles use "over" in the sense of 'above', the Someone to Watch over Me articles use "over" in the sense of 'in such a way as to cover', and "I Ran over a Mile" uses "over" in the sense of 'past, exceeding, or beyond'. They are different prepositions with the same name. I would consider a two-part phrasal verb to be "I had to completely do over that assignment". Xnux   the   Echidna  01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally believe this whole One Flew O(o)ver the Cuckoo's Nest capitalization controversy is simply the result of people not used to the proper capitalization of "over". I bet if the title was One Flew To the Cuckoo's Nest, people would correct the capitalization of "to" in a heartbeat because it is so commonly not capitalized. However, people are not used to seeing "over" uncapitalized, so they are more inclined to capitalize it. The same could be said for the capitalization of "like", "than", "'til", "out of", etc. But, that's just my opinion. Thanks, Xnux   the   Echidna  21:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

reverting this a 2nd time: Stay (Maurice Williams song)
"removing non-notable version. if the band isn't notable enough to even have an article, how can their version of this song be?"

I provided a reference. Its notable enough to show up on a google, the single shows up on eBay, has lyric webpages, a music video that shows up in search results. --x1987x(talk) 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed it again?--x1987x(talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Freak Box merged into The Freak Box
Back in June Freak Box was merged into The Freak Box but I don't think the relevent talkpage Talk:Freak Box went into Talk:The Freak Box, could you check please?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should Talk:Freak Box be deleted then?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it.


 * If you're interested... I came across this minor problem when I was attempting to assess the article from a WP:AUSMUS list of Unassessed articles. The talkpage linked to The Freak Box, which I was reading to determine my assessment, when I clicked on its Discuss this page tab I went to Talk:The Freak Box which was already assessed! Momentarily confused I checked page histories to find the merger of the articles hadn't included the merger of the talkpages - I thought they automatically followed but didn't know. Hence my mesage to you - I hope this hasn't annoyed you - its not that important.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for taking care of moving the "Someone to Watch Over Me" article, and' for providing the compelling argument to support it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that someone has moved them all back again!! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes
WikiProjects can do as they please, but in reality a succession box is not required, nor suggested, by any Wikipedia guideline. Therefore, any editor can add or remove a succession box at his or her digression. Neither of which would be right, nor wrong. NSR 77 T C  23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

removed POV statement
You have removed a statement written by myself on Quicksilver album "Maiden of the Cancer Moon" concerning two tracks on that album which are exactly the same one. Source needed is the message. Do you mean a source other than an owner of the record? And why should an outside source be more correct than a contributer who owns a copy him- or herself?

Now since you removed my statement, people who have the 2-CD album "Unreleased Quicksilver Messenger Service - Lost Gold and Silver" (which contains all tracks but the extra from "Maiden of the Cancer Moon") perhaps will say to themself: "What?? An extra track which is not on the my 2-CD album. I must get that 25 year old vinyl album". So they finally find a costy copy somewhere, take it home and discover they been fooled cause the 2-LP contains two exactly alike recordings.

I understand official sources are important but it could get a bit ridicously if a journalist writes an article in an official music magazine and after that uses his article as the source to contributions he makes himself on Wikipedia. --Jazzmicke (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

album dabbing
About the Quicksilver album Maiden of the Cancer Moon. I guess you're right about that. I can buy your opinion on that matter.

Now about the Quicksilver album "Peace By Piece", you have deleted the album dabbing. I guess that's ok but the reason I wrote it with the dabbing is because there's another Peace By Piece article at Wikipedia. But if it works without the dabbing, I guess it's ok ... --Jazzmicke (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Ready
I didn't get your message until I had finished creating this page. I don't know for sure if LaToya's version is the same song, since there's no songwriter info on that page. A quick google search led me to a blog that indicated it was the same song, but I don't know for sure. LaToya and Jed may have attempted to sing the song in Japanese, if the blog I read is accurate. So I may have made yet another error. By the way, I want to phrase this as politely as possible: ever since I wiki-linked Huey Lewis & the News using "&" instead of "the", I feel like you are kind of following me around everywhere I go on wikipedia, and to be honest I find it a bit unsettling. You seem to know what you're doing and have made some good edits to pages, and what appeals to me about this site is, well, pulling out a machete and carving my way through the wiki-jungle independently, so to speak. I know you have every right to go wherever you want, I just wanted to let you know my emotional reaction to seeing your name on so many articles I've either created or contributed to. I can tell you are into music as much (if not moreso) than I am, so I'm sure we'll cross paths in the future. Thanks, and if you know how to fix the mess I made in creatng a needless page, I appreciate your expertise. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed this correctly...I copied everything from the page I created into the existing article, then did a bit of rearranging to make it look right. Then I went back and redirected YIR (Barbara Mason song) to the existing page. I guess if I had noticed the sentence about Barbara Mason on the song page, I wouldn't have created a new page (but I'm not so sure about that, I miss some really obvious things sometimes). And I do most things the loooooong way, like the pages I've created, so I didn't read your message until I was done.


 * Thanks for the kind words, Wolfer. I've made 99% of my edits in the past few months, teaching myself a lot of what I know by trial and error (and watching people who know what they are doing). One of the things I have to get used to is how easy it is on wikipedia to see what everybody else has been up to, and that goes both ways. I've unwittingly gotten mixed up in a brouhaha with a user who causes a lot of trouble and has been reported for vandalism; the whole thing started when I heard a Sting song on the radio, and so I've been charting his path of destruction in an effort to get him to stop. In that sense, I'm glad it's so easy to track the contributions of others. I admit that I'm not used to attracting attention on here. Prepare yourself for quite possibly the world's worst analogy, but it used to bug me if I would walk by someone and catch them looking at my butt as I passed. Then I realized 'well, who cares? You want to look, look' and it didn't bother me. I just have to get to that point in my wiki-life as well. Of course my butt's not what it used to be, but enough of that (please! I hear you saying), and I'm not taking a dig at you or anything. I'm glad you like reading the articles I've created, and that the majority of the information is acceptable. The only comment I'd make about the newspaper columnist you mentioned is that he or she never sees when somebody pulls out a red pen and marks up their column. Anyway, thanks for the advice, and we're bound to run into each other on here again. Take care. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, but that's life on wikipedia. :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ashanti's fifth studio album
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ashanti's fifth studio album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ashanti's fifth studio album. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? AndrewHowse (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Man with the Horn (song)
Thanks for moving the page. I wanted to do that after I created it, but I decided not to, because I thought people would be confused and think that the song came from the album The Man with the Horn. I guess I should've done it anyway, because it seems silly now! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder March
I have removed the prod tag from Rolling Thunder March, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 24
In response to your removal of the article titled Chapter 24, I have taken action and posted a note about it at Talk:Pink Floyd. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-Platinum
Double Platinum is essentially a slang term used by the music industry when talking about an album that's sold/shipped two million copies. Same thing with Triple Platinum or Quadruple Platinum. As far as the multi-platinum prefix goes, I think it's important to use them. Naturally, the RIAA database is going to be the primary source when it comes to RIAA certifications, and since an album that's listed as being a multiple platinum album is listed as "Multi-Platinum", I don't see why we should change it. It can also serve as a possible distinction between RIAA certs and the certs of other music sales organizations. Take the CRIA for instance, it uses the term Platinum without the multi prefix, so that's how Canadian certs should be listed. It can also lend another possible distinction since Platinum certifications in the U.S. and Canada, for instance, don't mean quite the same thing since Platinum in Canada I think is 100,000 copies rather than 1,000,000 in the states.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I respect Odin's Beard's edits elsewhere, most of what that editor writes in this instance are the conclusions of one editor based upon erroneous assessments. "Double Platinum" is not a slang term.  Indeed, the RIAA's own usage would be a primary indicator for how Wiki would style such things, considering that these awards are trademarks of that organization.  And the RIAA routinely uses the terms "double Platinum," "triple Platinum," and so on to refer to such multiples of sales echelons.  As in the rest of the language, the terms "double" and "triple" are most commonly used, with "quadruple" and "quintuple" used more rarely.  "Sextuple," "Septuple" and beyond are virtually never used, favoring "6x Platinum" and "7x Platinum" or written out ("Multi-Platinum certification for sales of 6 million units," etc).  As you no doubt realize, the first time an album is certified Multi-Platinum it is a double Platinum award, and the second time an album is certified Multi-Platinum it is a triple Platinum award, yet Odin's Beard's erroneous phrase "2x Multi-Platinum" is a bit of a paradox: does it mean something has been certified as Multi-Platinum twice, hence triple Platinum, or does it mean double Platinum?  It means neither, as it is not a legitimate usage of the RIAA.  But don't believe me simply because my logic should make more sense than Odin's Beard's, believe the official usage of the RIAA itself.  To get at the truth, go deeper into the RIAA website and note how they style the terms.  Here  is one example (note the first, sixth, tenth and eleventh paragraphs).  Abrazame (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at how the certs are listed in the database itself. That's all I'm saying. Go to the Gold and Platinum database, type in the name of an album that you know is a multiple platinum seller, and the certification record of said album will pop up. The use of the multi prefix is clear for anybody to see.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the site and note that it only defines Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum. The article that Abrazame references notwithstanding, if you look throughout other news articles, the terms are used rather interchangeably.  It is an inconsistency with the RIAA's definition.  If it's 1 million units moved for Platinum, and 2 million units for Multi-Platinum, then something that is 2x multi-Platinum should be 4 million units, by definition.  However, it seems that double-Platinum and 2x multi-Platinum mean the same exact thing. The following comes from a January 2008 new item from the RIAA:
 * The highest certification in January went to the Eagles’ Long Road Out of Eden at 7x multi-Platinum for selling more than seven million copies. The album, released in October, is the band’s first studio album since 1994’s acclaimed Hell Freezes Over which went 8x Platinum. The sales represent an enduring interest in the band's classic sound 13 years after their last album release.'
 * They're not even consistent within a single paragraph, so it's really just down to semantics and preferences, I guess. I would suggest that we're consistent with the terms in any individual article and don't edit an article just to change from one way or the other if it's already consistent within.  You may also want to talk this to the wikiproject WP:ALBUMS page to see if some kind of consensus can be reached, if that already hasn't been done.  Thanks.  --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've tried to tell him, I tried to initiate a discussion about this at the discography project's discussion page months ago. I was curious if there was a consensus or policy regarding the use of the multi prefix. One person responded and essentially said it didn't matter to him if the multi prefix was used or not. I'm not going to beg and plead for users to join in a discussion, which seemed to me that nobody simply cared enough about the issue to respond to it when I raised it. That, coupled with the fact that several FL articles feature the use of the multi prefix and several that don't, says to me that the project overall cares little about which one is used. I only used the multi prefix because of it's use in the RIAA database. I wasn't trying to rewrite policy or go against consensus because there's no consensus or policy about this.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

True till Death
Hello. I've removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on True till Death. The article was proposed for deletion back in 06, that was contested, and then it was up for deletion at Articles for deletion, and kept. Since deletion has been contested already, per deletion policy, any further nominations for deletion have to take place at Articles for Deletion. Raven1977 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns; tagging
Hello, Wolfer68. Thank you for pointing out your copyright concerns with Image:Billybunter.jpg. I'm dropping you a line just to let you know that the tag that you placed on the image, copyvio, is specifically used for text that violates copyright. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. For images used under suspect non-free content criteria, we have non-free content review. Other image copyright concerns are handled in various ways (see Guide to image deletion for specifics.) I have corrected the tag on this image so that it can be handled in the proper venue, but I wanted to let you know for future use in case you should encounter another image that raises concerns. Thanks again for pointing out the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about that, but I am now very confused. :) You are attributed with listing it at Copyright problems/2008 November 7. In fact, you're attributed with listing the first five four items posted there. I'll have to see if I can figure out why, if you did not tag it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see. When you moved the items listed in the wrong place, attribution was given to you. Thanks. I'll pass that on to the person who actually listed it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The downside of our otherwise handy automatic signature system. :) I've run afoul of that one, too, when repairing broken copyvio templates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lunch with the Devil
Hi. Copyright problems of the 7th have now come current, and I'm investigating this one, but I'm confused. Everyone seems to see a release at the source, but I do not. Did you visit the page and see it yourself? If so, perhaps they've altered it back? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Steal Hear edits
Thanks for the contribs you made to Steal Hear. But in regards to its release date Feb. 19, 2008, from what I understand, that was the original planned date, but it was pushed back and eventually released on Oct. 28, the same day as the debut of his TV show, "Coolio's Rules". Please get back to me on this. Thanks - Wilkos (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox or show preview button. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
I would apprecieate those ELO songs bring left alone, I have been recently expandeing them and wiki-fying those articals with notable facts about each song and I am not finished yet!

allmusic versus Allmusic
Hi, I've noticed that you're changing Allmusic to allmusic in articles. Please can you read MOS:TM as to why it should be capitalized on Wikipedia. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Trio
You're right, they never were officially called "Trio". I took it to articles for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arrival (EP)
Ooops - my bad, thanks for the pick up - forgot to delete the page from my sandbox when I created it. Dan arndt (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell Me It's Not Over
All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Tell Me It's Not Over has receive media coverage in significant medias and has received critical acclaim. I'll add the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.21.228.203 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Song "Crazy" (Vote for Love album)
I put my original info back in for now as AllMusic has a re-release (identical tracklist but 3 CD) stating Nelson as the writer of the song, yet the What About Me? page says otherwise. I'll figure out which is correct and fix both. Hold out for a day or two until I fix it either way. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because they are both correct. "Crazy" by Willie Nelson is a classic country song made famous by Patsy Cline. That's the version Kenny Rogers covered for the Vote for Love album.  "Crazy" as written by Richard Marx and Kenny Rogers was an original composition for the What About Me? album. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Willie Nelson Discography
Hi Wolfer68, I've been seeing that you made some corrections on my last articles or adding some info, many thanks for that. I write to you for ask for some help on the infobox of the article Willie Nelson discography, I have to relocate the album  Good Ol' Country Singin'  from its current place in the 60's to the year 2000 but everytime i try to do so, i mess up the box so, can you maybe help me??. Thanks for reading this and thanks for your help in the other articles. GDuwen (talk).


 * Thanks for fixing Discography and relocating the album it will be a way easier now for complete all albums.