User talk:NrDg/Archive 081231

---

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

---

Archives:

070625-070920-071102-071231

080101-080131-080229-080331-080429-080531-080630-081130

Brandi Glenn Cyrus

The AfD I nommed was closed as a redirect to Miley Cyrus, not Billy Ray Cyrus. Did I miss a further discussion? --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Then change the redirect for Brandi Cyrus to go to the same place, they are the same person. It made no sense to me for alternative spellings of the same person to redirect to different locations. In my opinion she is most known as being the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus than the sister of Miley Cyrus and more information about her is in the Billy Ray Cyrus article. --NrDg 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Had no idea there was a Brandi Cyrus article (well, redirect). Agreed they should both point the same way, but am uncomfortable riding roughshod over an AfD decision, especially as, in my opinion, the amount of info on her is similar in both articles! Persuasively, the kind of people most likely to be looking for Brandi are far more likely IMHO to have heard of Miley than grizzled ole daddy! :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll change both of them to redirect to Miley Cyrus then. I don't really care, I just wanted consistency and I thought the Brandi Cyrus redirect was the one most likely to be searched for so changed the less likely search name to match the most likely one. --NrDg 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ace. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Could you block this IP again, his edits today have been really disruptive :-( — Realist² 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. — Realist² 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive495 § 200.109.222.132

--NrDg 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted, cheers again. — Realist² 12:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind taking a look?

Can you have a look at this discussion at my talk page? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at ANI discussion. --NrDg 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet or sockpuppet, take your pick

Jonasmiley19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alyson19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are pretty clearly working in tandem.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Probable and possible some others as well. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonasmiley19 --NrDg 06:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So This Is Love

Advice needed on this one. I noticed that my redirect on So This Is Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been undone, so I restored it (the chart information is false, and this song has not charted). The editor undoing my redirect has undone a bunch of other ones:

• Cheetah-licious Christmas (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dance Me If You Can (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• One World (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• If I Never Knew You (The Cheetah Girls song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the other songs, I gave up, and took them to AFD.

There are two real problems:first, the IP doing this is just CheetahBrian/BrianYau323/FrJonas again. After he was indefinitely blocked, he has just resorted to anonymously sockpuppeting. I'm confident of this because of the IP range and how closely it corresponds to the ranges in [[1]], and the fact that every one of these articles was very recently edited by one of the named socks. It's a dynamic range, and nearly impossible to block, which leaves the option of semi-protecting the article as a redirect, leaving it open in case someone ever decides to write an article about the 1962 song with this title that did chart. The second problem then arises, that leaves this page as a redirect to a disambiguation page. A straightforward name redirecting to a disambiguation page just feels plain wrong.

One option (and my gut preference) is to move the disambiguation page over this one, and have the disambig page be deleted as unnecessary under CSD-G6. It feels like the right thing to do, but somehow a bit sneaky, even if the only opposition is coming from an indefinitely blocked editor.

Thoughts?—Kww(talk) 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is essentially a PROD - if it doesn't stick, then AfD is indicated. With a closed AfD delete or redirect on record the recreated article can either be deleted per G4 and maybe salted or the redirect protected. Suggest you undo the redirect on "So This is Love" and add it to the AfD you started on the others. Assuming AfD on all of these close as delete, I would then move the disambig page over the article. Can't do much against a dynamic IP other then protect the targets. I think the AfD is the best way in this case. --NrDg 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your moves created a double redirect from "So This Is Love (The Cheetah Girls song)" to "So This Is Love (disambiguation)" to "So This Is Love". I changed "So This Is Love (The Cheetah Girls song)" to redirect straight to DisneyMania 5. We'll see if that holds. If the redirect gets undone again, I'll take it to AFD.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I hope we got all the side effects taken care of. I deleted "So This Is Love (disambiguation)" as an unlikely search phrase. --NrDg 02:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox, again

Report is here.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this here in such a short note. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Simmering problem

When I get to this stage with an editor, I like to let an admin or two know just so that I'm not the only one keeping an eye on him. MaxPerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come up to final warning stage on my radar. A quick look at his talk page history shows the problem:

• first unsourced material warning
• second unsourced material warning
• third unsourced material warning
• fourth unsourced material warning
• fifth unsourced material warning
• first NPOV warning
• first test edit warning This one looks dicey to me ... bad formatting, but no malicious intent
• vandalism warning
• Hoax single taken to AFD
• bad chart warning
• second vandalism warning
• sixth unsourced material warning
• third vandalism warning
• seventh unsourced material warning
• eighth unsourced material warning
• ninth unsourced material warning
• second NPOV warning
• final vandalism warning.

I don't see much hope for productivity here, and it always amazes me how people with warning histories like this can have a clean block log.—Kww(talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Density of disruptive edits is too low, some of his stuff has been OK and he clears out his talk page (as is his right) to make it hard for the automated tools to flag him. Also check on his edits as an IP editor Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MaxPerry. Looks to be from Brazil, may have some language comprehension problems with the warning messages. Can't do too much unless and until he goes past the final warning. --NrDg 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the honors to you: another article based on rumors, complete with a fan-art cover, at Candy Shop (Madonna song). I've already rolled it back and restored the redirect.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Looked at it more closely: it's not just based on rumors. The Billboard chart positions seem to be completely fake.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MaxPerry.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results came back: positive for VANESSALOPEZ and Maxsilva, stale for Maxkito.—Kww(talk) 10:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... looks like you already saw.—Kww(talk) 10:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK

Ok thanks. I added the information. What do you think though, could we still add it as we both have proof? I'm just asking your opinion but I'll still wait for other comments though. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to go with the opinion of the uninvolved Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) posted at WP:RSN but wait to see what other say. --NrDg 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

On Selena's discussion page, I mentioned what she said on her SayNow regarding her duet with Demi Lovato. Is there something you want to add there? --Geekboy6 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you did read her talk page, I just want to know what you think about this info. --Geekboy6 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Selena Gomez --NrDg 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My recent changes to Brenda Song

My recent changed to the GA article, Brenda Song are very long, but it seems like it may end up getting reverting. It took me a very long time to find the references and expand the Personal Life section and to re-organize the lead\intro. But the changes may dissappiont many lead amdins and get reverted so I am wondering what are your opinions on the changed. This is very important to me because I spend a very long time working on thid to make it viewable and perfect. I added a Mochi Magazine reference and some sentences about Song's early life which may be triviac and removed. I just want to know what are your thoughts and how I can improve it. I can't edit locked pages yet, such as Emma Watson. Here is the revision page for Brenda Song: [2] I added new sentences and references to the personal life section too. Thank you and I well really appreciate hearing your comments. I am very afraid and worried, that it may get reverted, fully revert. Thanks. --ThyCantabrigde 12:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts seem to be good faith improvements to the article. As a part of the normal evolution of the article others may make changes to what you did. When that happens, and if you disagree, enter into a discussion with them on either their talk page or on the article talk page. --NrDg 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --ThyCantabrigde 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Applying for Huggle (Rollback)

With the current contributions would it be worth me applying for Rollback? I have Huggle, but cant use it until rollback is enabled on my account. Thanks --Frankie0607 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If ya don't do thinks like this again... ;-) ----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord² 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah awh, I never wrote that, Im sure you can see I reverted it back by accident :P I was too late reverting, And reverted the new version :P Dam that looks bad, But I never wrote that :P I will be more careful in future ;) Thanks --Frankie0607 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO you're doing a great job.----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord² 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Ill apply when I find the page. Could you link me? Thanks--Frankie0607 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord² 01:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In my personal opinion Twinkle gives you everything rollback does, plus Twinkle makes it easy to give the proper messages to go with the reverts. I very seldom use rollback as I want to give feedback to the reverted editor. I recommend using Twinkle for now and getting at least a few weeks under your belt, then applying for rollback/Huggle. --NrDg 01:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rodger that, Thanks for the help, Merry Christmas, Im off to bed :)--Frankie0607 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

NrDg Im really sorry,I hope you will grant me an acccount please, This is gerald gonzalez. 203.177.247.127 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, Lu & Og

Would you kindly take a look at [3]. Gimmetrow 22:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP won't see the messages and probably won't engage in discussion. --NrDg 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Which makes it difficult. I'm shocked you think tv.com is a reliable source. Gimmetrow 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like to use TV.COM but it seems to be generally accepted as a reliable source by most. TV.COM is a unit of CBS Interactive so is not some fly-by-night fan site so I haven't found a really effective way to push back on using it. Also in the talk page of the article under consideration both sides of the argument for using it had to be brought up - the IP editor's thoughts, so to speak, since he is unlikely to enter the discussion. With fair consideration of both sides of the argument there is a stronger claim to pick the one with the strongest support. --NrDg 03:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Album cover for Hannah Montana Hits Remixed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Album cover for Hannah Montana Hits Remixed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - this is embarrassing as I've been tagging other images for this. Added {{Non-free album cover}} to description. --NrDg 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done

Ok, I think that it's official that the Disney/Pixar Part of the forum isn't counted as a source for future episodes, even though the information is from Disney. I've tried and it's time for me to stop. I know that I can't change the rules or prove anything since I'm not an editor so I can't really put in my point. Thanks for the help, I'll just have to wait till a TV Guide website posts the episodes. But can I ask you a question. If I can get Burgendy Ranger to open a website and have him post the iinformation there, can that count as the official source? If not I guess I'm out of ideas. But having future episodes is important to me and I know that vandalism can happen, and I know that I've been helping keeping it down so future episodes can be posted if a reliable source is posted. Thanks, and please reply. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You represented your points very well in the noticeboard discussion but ran up against a very strong aversion to using forums as sources under any circumstances even when it is acknowledged that some of the forum posters may have accurate knowledge. Forums and forum posters are not regarded as reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as per WP:RS - they have the exact opposite reputation. You have shown that one specific person on one specific forum has accurate knowledge but editors who replied on the noticeboard are not willing to say he has the required reputation only that he has had access to accurate information which is not sufficient. In other words you might trust him to accurately transcribe information he gets but other wiki editors are not. It was brought up on the noticeboard discussion, and by me originally, that if Burgundy Ranger had a web site where he posted without any editing the raw data he is using that would likely be an acceptable source. You have stated that he is unable to do this by his contractual constraints on how to use the information. He therefore won't post the information directly as he can't. You have gone as far as it is possible to go on this issue for this source in my opinion.

As for the issue of future episodes in general: You, like a lot of editors, want far future episode information in the articles. A lot of other editors, like me and some of the responders on the noticeboard, strongly think this is unnecessary and goes against the desire for this to be an encyclopedia, not an episode guide. It is most important that the information be well sourced and accurate - that can only really happen after the episode has aired. I generally tolerate some future episode information when it is well sourced as editor consensus is to have some amount of future episode info in the articles.

You did a good job of working this issue. You interacted well with other editors to try to gain consensus support for your position. Taking this to WP:RSN was the appropriate way to get wider examination and comment. It looks like you are going to accept the judgment of the other wiki editors on the noticeboard as well. This is the way things are supposed to work on Wiki. --NrDg 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much :D. I see what your saying. Burgandy can post the information, but has to wait till the month is over before he can make .pdf file availiable to the public. I know that have like 10 future episodes is a lot of episdes for future episodes (I feel that is a lot too so I'm with you on that ;). However If an episode is announced somewhere can we put in the talk page that so and so episode has been announced but we have to wait till a reliable source has the accurate information to post in the future episodes part.... I'm going to try my best to help out in anyway that I can. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is probably not a good idea to use the article discussion page that way. I suggest that you use a subpage on your own user page to keep track of what is coming up so you are ready to add to the article when you find a good source. The biggest benefits that anybody can do for episode articles is first carefully watch the episode to capture writer, director and guest cast credits plus a good episode plot summary and second look for any references that discuss/review the episode. Your efforts to improve the list of episodes articles is greatly appreciated. --NrDg 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Montana third season soundtrack

Why did Walt Disney not launch a soundtrack for the Hannah Montana's third season? Do you know at least one reason for that? 201.16.200.201 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They probably will, and one for the movie as well - we can't put that in any article as Walt Disney Records has not announced it yet . See WP:CRYSTAL for the rules we follow for future expected stuff. --NrDg 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So, even if we have absolute certainty we can not put it without a source? 201.16.200.201 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct - we need a reliable source that gives reasonable amounts of details and doesn't itself indulge in rumors and speculation. When it is real it will show up at http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/index.html in the "Upcoming & Latest Releases" section. We don't strictly have to wait for that but we need something pretty solid. If you are interested check out the article deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 3 (soundtrack). --NrDg 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I really don't understand but it's alright, by the way, thank you for trying to make me understand, I will don't put anything like that again. 201.16.200.201 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello old friend.

Just wantedto stop by and say hello, and also ask a favor. Can you please keep an eye on User talk:69.112.43.77? Their block is over and they're continuing to disrupt The Cleveland Show page with edits which are again the current sources. Thanks and happy editing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus template

Singles/Songs? Do you really think that we should put Breakout's article? Britney's Radar is a charted song and have a great history, and not for all that was placed in her template. I think that this template is not good with this section, I don't know, make it unprofessional. Renanx3 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a navigation template is to help people find stuff related to the subject. An article with significant coverage should be there somewhere. The Britney Spears template is for singles only, the Miley Cyrus one has everything for Miley Cyrus. The distinction between song and single is subtle to most people so I don't see the problem with a song/single group. When there are more songs a separate group could be created for songs, but I don't think that is necessary now - but I wouldn't oppose it either. Either way significant articles should be in the template. --NrDg 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So Britney's song should be listed here, right? Renanx3 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You could create a group called songs in that template and add any/all non-single song articles there - other editors will object though. It really belongs in the singles template - it is just that that template is misnamed or maybe that doesn't really matter that much. You need to think of the reader and how they would look for stuff. From a reader's perspective the distinction between singles and songs is really picky - they just want to find related articles. It is somewhat of a judgment call as to how the nav templates get organized. Being strictly correct is really less important than being useful to the reader. Lots of good stuff in WP:NAV to consider. --NrDg 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But you saying "it really belongs in the singles template" because you think so, it's your opinion, right? Since I started talking about it, I'm with a doubt: why are you always right? I can't understand. Look: you want to put it and I don't want it, so why you won it? 201.16.200.201 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that you is a adm, it's that reason, forget what I said, I really didn't know this, sorry. 201.16.200.201 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My being an admin is not relevant to this discussion and you have nothing to apologize for. This is about editorial issues, not admin issues and I am just another editor. Yes - everything I recommend is my considered opinion based on what the purpose of navigation templates are. You are free to ignore it if I have not been convincing to you in my reasoning. I am not involved in the Britney Spears articles and don't plan on making any editorial changes there. --NrDg 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So if you want to put it and I don't want so, I just edit? And then? I keep waiting you revert my edits? 201.16.200.201 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a compromise. You said it wasn't a single, it was a song. You were right to remove it for that reason. I think the article belongs in the template somewhere. I didn't just simply revert your edit, I changed the group title from single to single/song to put it back and address your valid reason. We are working together to get to something we both can accept. You started a discussion about this on my page and I am trying to get to an agreement with you about this issue. I thought I addressed all your concerns. Is there some other reason you don't want the Breakout (Miley Cyrus song) in the template:Miley Cyrus nav box other than it not being a single? --NrDg 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually not, I think it's just that I did not like "Singles/Songs", yeah, a really great reason to not put, sorry this discussion for nothing, as always you won. 201.16.200.201 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)