User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sliding Albion tagged as "WTF?"

Thanks for that. I was info-rming WWGB of why I'd de-speedyed it and was going to return to tag it myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble! Tonywalton ^Talk 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Links

After spending some hours on jukebox mechanism my work has vanished ? is it possible to have the text reinstated ? regards Ray Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorraymond (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to School Backpacks, Inc.

What needs to be done to this article to make it acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGreer13 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This ain't non-notable...it's a sourced event!

You removed the information on the Craig Ferguson article about the Fall Out Boy parody, how they sang part of it in Glasgow; however, it was sourced. Someone who was at the concert taped them playing it and put it on YouTube. Although this was not on television, it certainly is worth mentioning. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not involve Ferguson. It was passing remark about a parody of song by Fall Out Boy that refers to Ferguson. On top of this, Youtube videos are not reliable sources for cites. All in all it is a very trivial event with practically no significance to Ferguson. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This YouTube video WAS a reliable source - it was taped at the damn concert! You could SEE and HEAR Patrick going to the mike and starting to sing it and Pete interrupting him! God, sometimes Wikipedia needs to realize some videos ARE reliable. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Youtube video shows. It's a trivial non-event that has absolutely no significance. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UK English

I speak UK English, and in UK English surely Queen _is_ a band? Regardless of that, you also reverted back to "an British". I42 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy Pandy

I am sorry but I have reverted your edit to Andy Pandy. The original version is backed by sources. This has the advantage of explaining why they filmed 26 episodes. The word later is questionable because it implies that there was a gap between the episodes they did not film, and the episodes they filmed. The sources I have looked at do not tell me whether this was the case or not.

It would help a lot if we had sources telling us the dates of the original broadcasts of the episodes that were filmed, and the dates of the broadcasts of the episodes that were not filmed. My understanding is that there was a brief gap between the first few episodes being broadcast and subsequent episodes. I have no idea whether they started filming episodes with the episodes after the gap.

Do you know whether the all the original episodes that were filmed still exist?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Please don't remove cited sources simply because you disagree with them. This is not the level of personal interaction expected from editors on Wikipedia. If you want to make any changes, please discuss them on a talk page first. King of Mercia (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be ok if the sources supported your edits- but they do not. You're on thin ice here. Rodhullandemu 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The cite you supplied does not support what you added. It has absolutely zero about;

• "currying favour with the English Public"
• "morose outlook"
• "inability to project a personality"
• "dour Jock"
• "miserable bastard"

These are all just your personal opinions and petty insults that verges on plain vandalism. Not only is this a violation of neutral policy, but a violation of biography policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray 2

Thanks for your thanks! It's nice to know that I am not the only one frustrated by messy sports articles! I'm waiting for the reverts though from enthusiastic fans though! ;) Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have the energy for 2008 and 2009 just now, so the project's not complete! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Queen (band)

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page [1]. Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding the nature of the IP edits to the article. Would you like me to turn off the semi-protection early? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw your message on my user page stating "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on Queen (band)."

Please proceed to edit any and all parts of the Queen article in any manner you deem appropriate. I have no interest in editing this article. I stepped away from the computer I was using in the University's computer lab to visit the men's room and during this time someone apparently used my then open account at Wikipedia to make the change(s) you addressed. Again, please proceed to edit any and all parts of the article in any manner you deem appropriate. I have no interest in editing this article.

Please do not reply to this message. It seems that the article in which you are interested was the only one affected and I do not want to clutter up my talk page, or any other pages, with messages about the article in question. Please feel free to edit the page upon which this message appears by deleting this message in whole or part, as you deem appropriate.--LexVacPac3 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone else opened the account, then surely it wouldn't be your talk page?? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand him: he was editing, and while still logged in, went to the toilet. Another person in the computer lab saw the logged in account and made the edit. I accept the explaination. Radiopathy •talk• 02:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment - Windows Product Activation

Windows Product Activation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page edit

The link I de-linked at the talk page to Gately's bio was to a trashy tabloid piece with a sensational title about an unproven and libelous claim irrelevant to the subject of that article. It is appropriate to disallow gratuitous links to tabloid trashing and violations of BLP, no? In fact, the degree this minor element of the man's death is already given is hugely overblown coverage in his biography, fully half of the article for someone who was notable for a great many #1 hits in Britain and other events in his career. (Clearly this was simply an issue of recentism and sensationalism and is now due for a major editing-down.) Additionally, the link is not to a specific article as it claims to be—apparently there is no longer an article with the headline that this link alleges, and it simply deposits you on the main page for the tabloid. Finally, the link did not serve the OP's point; even if the tabloid story were true, asserting intimacy does not logically disallow the use of the term "friend". I did not alter anything about the post but to de-link the dead tabloid link.

From WP:BLP:

Restoring deleted content

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.

Talk pages

Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc).

Dealing with articles about the deceased

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.

(Bolding is mine.) As such, I am about to restore my edit, not to be tendentious or start an edit war, but because I believe I have established that I am firmly in the right per these guidelines, and because I assume you are a responsible editor whose revert was in good faith but without fully understanding the issues I raised in my first paragraph; and because I am about to log off for the day and so will not be available to restore my edit upon your response. Perhaps I should have more clearly indicated that my edit was regarding a BLP violation, but that calls more attention to the edit and tends to draw the mistaken "but he's dead" kinds of protests. Given the libelous nature, I would appreciate it if you would post any response here. I don't know that oversighting or purging is called for, but part of the point is that I feel it inappropriate to draw further attention to the link at that page. Not to overstate my point, but two or three times before I have made edits to talk page posts for this same purpose, and each time was reverted back in before being ultimately acknowledged that it, in fact, did not belong on the talk page, and was reverted back out. Talk pages are not forums of general free speech, they are governed by BLP guidelines and are there for specific and reasonable content discussion. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Rader

Don't mindlessly revert edits without reading them. -Nard 22:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read it. Speculating that someone may possibly live to the age of 235 is ridiculous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Claiming he has no possibility of parole is also ridiculous. He does, if he lives that long. -Nard 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He will not live that long. So speculating that he may gain parole at that time is senseless. I have removed both additions. I think the reader gets the idea without either summing up. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to School Backpacks, Inc.

I just added the company website to the list of references. And the second reference is the company information through the state of California Business directory. Is that not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGreer13 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced and referenced are different

While I don't disagree with the removal you did here (since the comments were probably intended to be humorous and shouldn't be reported literally), that material was explicitly sourced to the primary source, the Mission Hill DVD commentary. Unsourced and unreferenced are two different things. If the text says "According to foo" then it's sourced. Gigs (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point, but I tend to regarded uncited as unsourced in these cases. After all, if we have no evidence to confirm that 'foo' did say this, then we have no reason to believe 'foo' did. This is particularly true when it appears to be derogatory (whether said is jest or not) and therefore breaches WP:BLP. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of recorded and distributed materials like DVDs, they themselves are the evidence and primary source that provide verifiability. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit On Julia Nunes Article

I noticed you made an edit which removed some information. Acoustic music has varying genres such as acoustic rock, acoustic metal, acoustic jazz, acoustic Christian rock, etc.. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but you there was no basis for removing that information on your part. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But "Acoustic" in itself is not a genre. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey-Voice

Please do not remove information that has been sourced. Those are lists that are sourced and are used in many other sites, as well as the reviews and other information.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your input

I will not create any additional edits.

Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkabuki1 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy PIcture

The fact that wikipedia is not censored is irrelevant. The picture has zero educational value. Furthermore, it is within the frame of the screen when the user first navigates the page. They have no way of blocking the picture if they do not want to see it. I appreciate uncensored aspect of wikipedia for other things - but for pregnancy, a picture of a naked woman is completely unnecessary and bordeline pornographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.barnes3 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find a educational picture of a human body so offensive. Please take the matter to the talk page. I also don't see how anyone can 'block' a picture without first seeing it, unless they block all images, just in case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Julia Nunes

The fact that I at least made the effort to at least quote somewhere more so then yourself says something. It was over two since I last left a comment. So as far as I am concerned this issue is done and over with. Nobody else seems to care that it is listed as a genre or they would have chimed in with their thoughts. This is getting redundant. There is nothing more to say to you because you are constantly wanting sources which I did provided, while you haven't provided anything. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You say you have provided sources where "Acoustic" is identified as a genre, but I'm afraid I am unable to find them. Could you please provide me a link to where you did this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you just bothered to skip over where I said my MySpace. Oh, here, here, and here. You still haven't linked to anything saying it isn't a genre. I have constantly proved my position and you haven't proven yours. You keep saying "acoustic isn't a genre" because you can. That doesn't cut it and you are trying so hard to get me to prove my position, as I said I have. You are not proving your position which is laughable. So until you prove your position with references, you position will continue to come off invalid. I still can't believe you are going on with this. I applaud you for your efforts, but like I said last time, it's over and done with. If you don't get that, I'm sorry. I have something that requires more of my time, then going on about something so redundant. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. To examine your points;

• Are you seriously suggesting that your MySpace page is a reliable source?? Indeed, I haven't 'bothered' to look at your MySpace page. Editors' self-published websites can never be considered as a source for anything.
• This one states upfront in the opening paragraph that the competition is for "Acoustic artists in various genres". So clearly "Acoustic" is not a genre in itself.
• This one is about the folk genre and says "Traditional folk music is a culturally specific, regional music made by the "folk," for the "folk," using acoustic (usually stringed) instrumentation". Nothing about Acoustic being a genre, but rather that the genre of Traditional folk is played on acoustic instruments.
• The last one indeed mentions Acoustic as a genre, but its definition is rather vague. It would appear that it is music played on an acoustic instrument. The actual genre of the music performed could be any, so I would suggest that the person quoted is using the term genre rather loosely. It's worth noting that he also defines the artists discussed as singer-songwriters and/or solo (music) performers, if "Acoustic" is a genre, why aren't these genres too? But really, is this the best cite you have? A quote voicing the opinion of one person who happens to say "genre"?
• Please stop asking me to produce a cite that proves a negative. It's illogical, not Wikipedia policy and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. The burden of proof lies with you, not with me.

So, to sum up;

• You have failed to produce a suitable cite that defines "Acoustic" as a genre.
• You have studiously avoided even providing a definition for the genre yourself.
• The wikilink you are adding as a genre links to a page that makes no mention of "Acoustic" being a genre.
• You have no interest in creating a Wikipedia article on a genre that you claim exists, but it notably absent from the encyclopaedia.
• You do not understand (or choose to ignore) Wikipedia policy on verifiability or reliable sources.
• You ignore questions directed at you and claim the issue is settled, because you say it is.

As it is impossible to get any real attempt from you to build consensus I intend to request a third opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you don't get that acoustic is the main genre just like rock is a main genre with several branched out sub-genres like pop rock, soft rock, alternative rock, punk rock, etc.. The one link says "acoustic music genre." I guess you decided to ignore that. Where are your references? I keep asking and you still haven't provided anything. You want a third party and consensus so you can push your position. If you can't provide references, then you truly don't want a third opinion. MySpace has been used plenty of times. One of Jack Conte's blogs on get this... MySpace was used as a reference. If you are not providing references, links, and whatnot, then you must not believe in your position. It goes both ways. Again I ask for you to provide links. If you fail to provide links, then you must agree to drop this issue. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this a number of times. Please read this link to policy. I don't need to provide links, you do. I can no more provide a reference to say that acoustic isn't a genre any more than I can provide a reference to say it isn't a flavour of bagel.

My request for a third opinion has produced a suggested compromise. Please read it on the talk page.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day content removal during RfC

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Patrick's Day, during an ongoing RfC located here. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no 'ongoing' RfC. The RfC has gone nowhere, has done nothing in a week, hasn't even started. There is also no obligation placed on me to to not remove content simply because you have requested a comment. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's say you had something you wanted to keep in WP and had sources that you believed were sufficient but you had ONE detractor and wanted to get a discussion going of third-party opinions. Tell me honestly what you would do. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are doing exactly the right thing. I too would be delighted to have some further input. How about seeking a third opinion? My point is that a RfC doesn't mean that the added content should stay until further notice. Usual practice is that the editor seeking to add has to reach consensus before newly added and disputed content is put back in the article. It doesn't work the other way around. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no it *would* work the other way around as I am adding something that I believe is valid and properly sourced, and the RfC is about the revert by one person (in this case: you) who disagrees, even after the white-listing request was successful (as in, it would've been declined if they flat-out thought it wasn't "good enough"). But sincerely, thanks for the suggestion, I'll try that. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is content that was removed shortly after it was first added, after discussion by a number of editors, because it was not reliably sourced. But it was re-added by one person (in this case you) who disagrees. The RfC is about your wish to include what I believe is poorly sourced information. And in this case guidelines agree with me. Blogs are not suitable.

White-listing has nothing to do with evaluating whether a URL is a suitable source. It just means that the entire web-site has previously been black listed (usually because of spam linking), but an admin has accepted that this one link is not an attempt to spam. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Happy hardcore

An article that you have been involved in editing, Happy hardcore, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy hardcore. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sukhum

The town can't change the fact. We have the position of the UK, which says it's in Georgia, not in Abkhazia. Also note, that in the source ISN't used the flag of separatists. --Gaeser (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Kilmarnock cannot alter the disputed country of Sukhum. But East Ayrshire and Kilmarnock can decide that they have a "friendship link" with Sukhum, Abkazia. It's their "friendship link", they get to decide who it's with, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to correct them. If you wish to dispute the location of Sukhum I suggest you take up the matter on that article and leave Kilmarnock and East Ayrshire to cited facts that are within the scope of those articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk)

The flags aren't mentioned in the reference, so they will be deleted.--Gaeser (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. The flag should be removed per MOS:FLAG. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk)

Overlinking

Hi. I noticed this. Can you take a quick look at WP:OVERLINK please, and then undo your edit. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the guideline and am comfortable with what's in the article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What would you say the links add to the article? --John (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Nowhereville, USA and I heard Queen on KW-ROCK NOWHERE FM. I want to know all about them, and where they're from is very important. I have a hazy idea of where the UK is (it's part of England, which is most of Europe, I think) and have never heard of London. This article fills me in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting philosophy. I suggest floating it at Wikipedia talk:Linking and maybe you can get a consensus to adopt it. Meantime, on this project, we don't link to country names unless for a special reason. As there is no special reason to link these geographical terms on a band's article, we don't link. Feel free to raise your justifications for restoring these links to article talk. --John (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed that in the guideline. Please show me where it says this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"What generally should not be linked: Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates" --John (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is not what you said. I think the words 'generally', 'particularly' and 'avoid' give plenty of lee-way that is utilized in a great deal of articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is exactly what I said. Look just above: "we don't link to country names unless for a special reason". So, as I was saying, what is the special reason for linking these terms in your opinion, please? --John (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement (and it is yours, despite the use of the plural 'we') is not what the guideline says, therefore the links do not have to be justified in those terms. England and London are particularly relevant because they are where the band was formed and provide a great deal of context to the band's background. There has also been consensus reached on the article that describes the band in these exact terms, due to some complexity about their nationality. It is therefore helpful that the reader understands fully the definitions used. This is in common with many articles about individuals, groups and organisations. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for (at last) answering my question. Can you point me (a link or a diff) to where the consensus was formed to link these terms? --John (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[silence]? --John (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They have been there in one form or another for nearly 7 years. No-one has objected. The last discussion about the lead involved them as links. No-one even mentioned it being an issue. That is consensus. I have explained why they are there and why they are in line with MOS. If you believe you have a case I invite you to pursue it in the appropriate place. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray details

Hello. I have had to revert your contribution to Andy Murray for two reasons. The first is that the question of how we present the country has been discussed though there is no acctual concensus, and in all honesty, I don't if these matters are resolved by concensus in the first place. The other thing is that the page has been protected for precisely that purpose, one user called User:Wikipéire has evaded the block by using numerous IP addresses (as confirmed by Checkuser) and this has been the precise point he has been pushing on the article. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but if you had been referring to this, that itself is not a concensus. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See User Talk:Evlekis. What was there previously had lasted nearly a year until User:Evlekis edited it without discussion. Just because a sock-puppet wishes it doesn't automatically make it wrong. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am fraid that "something being here one year" is not a reason to defend something. I added my part to the discussion and you did not reply then. The discussion in turn was not a concensus. To that end, I use the argument that London and UK do not have to be matched, no guideline dictates this. The practice is to use constituent nations everywhere else. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are still about - I have restored UK as you requested but did not take out ENG/SCO. That way the impasse is less slanting as it represents both angles. On the same note, I began a new section at the bottom of the talk page that will allow you, me, and other users to present their cases and allow for a concensus if required. Might I now suggest that if you are still interested in the subject, we exchange thoughts at the talk page rather than our respective talk pages. Thank you. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow University Guardian

Please leave the Glasgow University Guardian page alone. A phototgraph or image is a valid reference for a reference to that image wherever it is hosted on the web including facebook. If you would like to include those images within the page itself please do but do not delete the section which is an important part of the Glasgow University Guardian story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsprod1 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you are adding is original synthesis sourced from unreliable sources. See my explanation on the article's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking the time to do what others don't, and that's point me in the right direction by finding the appropiate wiki reference. So I understand how things are done, unlike others who just revert and quote something with out the reference. ThanksKnowIG 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

D:TNG requested for TFA

Degrassi: The Next Generation has been requested as the featured article for July 16. Your vote of support would be appreciated. 117Avenue (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PJ removals

Please kindly check Talk:Prahlad_Jani#Removed_info. Thanks! -- Nazar (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the video section on the same grounds that you did. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty clear case of WP:OR. 'Providing balance' can't be used as an excuse for this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Ive seen many of your edits regarding the Billboard Hot 100 Milestones, and you don't agree with anything. You would like all Wikipedia pages to mirror your preferences. Well it happens to be that that claim is accurately sourced, and if you don't agree, YOU take it to the discussion page. There is no reason not to add it, if you'd like i can put, "According to Island Records Mariah carey is the top-selling female artist of all time. It isn't fair to not allow it. Those kind of claims are frequent in "Celine Dion" and "Madonna" pages, the same is here.--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith. It is difficult to reach consensus on something if your response to questions are simply "I don't agree" or accusing others of ownership. Consensus requires discussion. You have been reverted a number of times on your additions here. Please discuss and actually explain what you want to add and why, before re-adding. You might find it useful to read this essay here on what should be done when you find your additions are being reverted. The answer is not to simply keep putting them back in and demand that others justify taking them out.

As I've explained, phrases like "of all time" are superfluous and not neutral. Also adding claims from press releases on Carey's own website or own record label is citing from primary sources, which is not a good idea on so bold a claim when there are no figures to back it up. What would be far more neutral and factual would be to state the figures. These tell the reader how successful Carey is, adding unsupported claims like "best selling of all time" doesn't make her any more significant, it just makes the article look like a fanpage. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So then hear me out, I have a few concerns. Then claims like "Michael Jackson is the most successful and influential entertainer of all time" would also be PEACOCK and should be removed, Or "Celine Dion is the best-selling female artist of all time". Those claims would also be the same. Additionally I have other reliable sources, that while they claim 200M sales, they also claim top selling female artist. I could easily add those..--PeterGriffin • Talk 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Even if cited, these are opinions open to debate, and not neutral presented. I would argue that they shouldn't be in an article's lead, which should concentrate on verifiable, third party sourced, facts. There are plenty of things that could be said about Jackson and Dion that are based on hard facts and amply demonstrate their notability, significance and achievements, without requiring opinions. But it's a thin line, and often it comes down simply to how its phrased. I don't like "of all time" because it appears to me too much like other meaningless peacock phrases used for POV emphasis. Like "most ever" (as opposed to "most some other time"?) or "most in the world" (as opposed to "most on the moon"?).

No problem with you adding cited figures from good third parties. But as you know, I believe the lead is over burdened with detailed "award counting" as it is. More is not always better. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You wouldn't oppose to adding the "Best-selling female artist of all time" as long as its sourced by reliable third party sources, right?--PeterGriffin • Talk 07:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine, except I don't see the need for "of all time". No source can really say that, they can only speak for the period that sales figures have been compiled. It would also have to be a very good cite, as it seems to be a disputed fact. What would be better is something like;

[Authoritative source] lists Carey as the the best selling female artist since records began in 19whenever with sales of NNN million .[1]

Others may dispute this, but unless they can demonstrate that [Authoritative source], isn't authoritative, it cannot be said to be false or dubious. It is then up to the reader to decide whether they believe [Authoritative source]. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, Ill show you what I mean before I add it, since we are having a good discussion here.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

hello MUST REPLY

please reply --- http://www.raising-redheads.com/images/Redhead-Young-Man.jpg --- <--- DO U KNOW THIS MAN Reply To mattchadz@hotmail.co.uk URGENT PLEASE REPLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.215.82 (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fake IPL Player

Liked the edits you made, except one sentence of mine that was removed "In March 2010, as if taking another cue from Daniel Lyons,". I wrote this because FIP had worked on the same modus-operandi as Daniel Lyons who used to author Fake Steve Jobs blog. The blog was plainly a ploy to sell the upcoming book of Daniel and they revealed his identity right before the release of the book. FIP did a similar thing, I know this because I interviewed him for the Indibloggies with a blogger friend. The book was not premeditated but it certainly was inspired by what Daniel had done with his blog and had been a success. --Debashish (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Hello Orbit, I would appreciate if you would assist me in the discussion/edit war taking place on this page. I have quoted the reliable sources and have listed 5 (3 independent) reliable sources claiming her the best-selling. Island Def Jam, Universal Music Group, The Daily Telegraph, The Insider and BMI. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Discussion

Hello Orbit, I followed your advice and idea, only to have trouble from a certain editor. We are now having a large array discussion, so please join and input your opinion. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Please, join the discussion here. Max24(talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Robin Williams. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to revert vandalism, but got caught in a edit conflict. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

George Lois

Why are you undoing the the changes I am making to the slanderous charges posted against this entry? I am trying to fairly and accurately represent the facts in this matter, with citations for support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow8821 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WP article dedicated to Jim Kerr

Hello Escape Orbit,

I created a specific WP article about Jim Kerr's solo tours but it was deleted. I content myself with a paragraph about Jim Kerr's solo tours within the Jim Kerr WP article which lasted a couple of months... till some WP censors (Ohconfucius & yourself Escape Orbit) recently decided to destroy my work (I spent dozens of hours working on this article, particularly creating links to YouTube pages)

I can't stand looking at my work being destroyed just like that !

Many WP articles dedicated to artists or bands have a WP article about concert tours (check out WP articles about Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Iron Maiden, Lady Gaga, Owl City...). These informations about concert dates & locations are very useful ! Besides, these concerts make history ! Thus, a WP article dedicated to Jim Kerr's solo tours is worth existing and very useful for anyone interesting in Jim Kerr's solo & video footages of (actually) rare live performances.

I'm tired of having to fight against wikipedia's discrimination.

I don't think it's good for WP to discourage WP updaters. I'd appreciate you (or anyone at WP's) stopping to delete again my work.

Sincerely,

Lurulu (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply on the Jim Kerr talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with reverts/rollbacks/undo

This edit really should have had an summary, and I suspect it was in error. Please use edit summaries. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not an error, and does have an edit summary. It was removing vandalism. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was also removing my source that someone had been asking for, and it also put vandalism back. There were a lot of edits in a short period of time so these mistakes are understandable. ah, does "rvv" stand for "reverting vandalism?" I see now, beg pardon. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Although, I'll suggest that most newbies (such as myself) aren't going to know what rvv means. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not V

Orbit, consider the history of Sex-positive feminism: in no way was the edit you reverted vandalism. Just because some Dude said it was doesn't mean it is--while the added term ("Fun feminism") is not as well-known as the other ones, it is a known term, and the edits were made in good faith, even if unexplained. Dude left a rather unfriendly note on the editor's talk page and they have made only one edit since then (a very positive one, reverted incorrectly by Dude); surely that is not a positive result for the project. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response on Drmies talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Escape Orbit. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unusual Sale Item

I'm sorry but the unusual sale item that I added recently which you reverted, although only local in the news, Gazette Live receives tens of thousands of unique hits every month. The sale of this ghost on eBay is known by quite a lot of people and I see no reason why it has no right to be listed on Wikipedia.

The addition is true, it is real and has correct linking. Why remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.28.99 (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ebay have listed and remove stupid things for sale all the time. This didn't get any further than being listed, and only got noticed by a local newspaper. Additionally, half the story you're adding is not mentioned on the cite. Are you sure you do not have a conflict of interest in adding this?? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

86.22.28.99 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) It certainly is not, just annoying when people spend time trying to add to the community and people remove it. It's nothing more than being annoyed by someone who wrongly removes something resulting in time being wasted, so I really would re-assess yourself on how you may judge people before you can fully make a viable judgement. Also, you say "stupid things" in an "unusual sale items" section of eBay on Wikipedia. I'd pretty much assume most people would say the majority of this section will be filled with stupid items on eBay, but the fact that they happened and people talked about it, allows room for history to be saved for future referencing. Many things happen in this world which are either not accepted by policy or deemed correct, but aslong as it's stated, then it's politically correct. The least you could have done was correct my addition to what you thought would be the correct way of putting it, I'm certainly not an English teacher but I did try and help the community by coming across something and adding it to Wikipedia, which I thought was the whole point of this website?

But you haven't added anything that demonstrates "people talked about it". All you have is one article in one local paper which, again, doesn't say much more than "local man puts something silly on eBay for charity". Anyone can do this. It's not notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

86.22.28.99 (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC) A lot of these already added don't have that either. The Gazette Live website includes the full story for reference. Nothing more than the actual facts are needed for Wikipedia, which is what I put. I have also put another reference which now indicates it has been removed from eBay. There is nothing that I have not included that isn't factual. It's all backed up by a reliable source. The references also include quotes from eBay, indicating their policy of why it was removed, which identifies the quotes used in my addition. I cannot see no faults and reason why it is not acceptable.

Feel free to remove if you honestly feel it doesn't fit the requirements of Wikipedia. If you do really care about the accuracy and content of Wikipedia, could you be also kind enough to give me the details of who I would contact in order to dispute this case. More for my own sanity more than anything, as if you are correct, then being able to find out the exact reason's why by a higher moderator, then maybe I can correct it for later additions, if I do bother adding anything anymore, which might not be the case as if there is this much hassle over something small, God knows how frustrated i'd be if I written a whole article about something that hasn't been discussed yet. Thanks.

I've raised the matter on the talk page for the article for other's input. The best place to discuss it is there, as Wikipedia works by establishing consensus. I know that can be frustrating, but please do not be put off editing Wikipedia. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson and YuryCassini

The above editor keeps doing what he did to the Susan Boyle page - changing Pattinson from English to British and adding UK to the infobox - just as he changed Boyle from Scottish to British and added UK to the infobox. This appears to be a campaign with him as he did the same thing to Christian Bale. I saw you reverted and noticed that you said it was discussed on the Talk page. I've reverted him with Pattinson, but he keeps coming back for more. Other than taking it to the Pattinson Talk page, any suggestions on how to handle this? It's really annoying. You can respond here. I'll watch for it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution

I noticed that you've done what I did and revert that IP who kept putting in GB and Scotland incorrectly on the Baltacha article. I've edited the solution in which keeps the way we represent GB and added in Scotland under the tag of Scotland at the 2010 Commonwealths, this should be enough to stop him. As in any case Tennis won't be played in 4 years time and I can't see Bally playing until she's 35 or something like that. Hopefully that will be the end of the edit warring KnowIG (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think Harry Potter would like you

From Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone talk: "Okay. Since you want to be less confusing and less academically-biased, perhaps you would also like to add in the reasons why Scholastic wanted to change the name? "Because they felt Americans would be too ignorant of what a Philosopher's Stone is/was. That they are so clueless about mythology and literature that even American adults would get all confused." Would that work? The fact that it has a different title, in one country, is, even from an academic standard, irrelevent [sic]. Ccrashh (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)"

See that, Escape Orbit? I admit, I was hot-headed about the whole thing--but do you like Ccrashh's punk attitude? Are you happy now that he's/she's answered for you?

One thing I can tell you, this clown does not know what a Philosopher's Stone is either. Rowling was not writing about the mythological "stone" as we know it today. She bent it into the variant definiens to fit her plot.

Point is, that title is a valid a/k/a title, ought to be listed next to the original and you know it. Let me offer you food for thought: Mark Twain wrote The Tragedy of Puddin'-head Wilson, which is known by other spellings and as Puddin' Head Wilson.

Let's say in Britain it had come out as Black Man's-White Man's Secret. You officially list only Black Man's-White Man's Secret? Or only the original title and not the hypothetical British title?

Am I getting through yet?? Don't you think Ccccrasshhhh deserves the same kind of caning you gave me for being rude?75.21.151.236 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ccrashh doesn't speak for me, and doesn't negate my point. Twain was American and published first in America, so you would list the American title. So your hypothetical example only proves my point. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are a thick one. My point--NOT yours--is that the two titles must be listed together, original one first, a/k/a after, but TOGETHER! As 'equal' titles! This is academically correct and saves confounding. Now I know you're doing no more than taking the piss. No one can be that wool-headed.75.21.151.236 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this conversation is ended.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)