User talk:NrDg/Archive 090131

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Archives:

070625-070920-071102-071231

080101-080131-080229-080331-080429-080531-080630-081130-081231

Hey, me again. Well, I know the reference says "brother" but he is only son of Leticia "Tish" Finley Cyrus his biological is not Billy Ray, so he's only half-brother, or I'm wrong? Renanx3 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He was adopted by Billy Ray so he is now legally Billy Ray's son. See http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20061306,00.html "Tish's kids from a previous relationship, Brandi, 20, and Trace, 18, whom Billy Ray adopted as tots". In other words he is Billy Ray's son, not step-son and Miley's brother, not half-brother. This is how the family refers to each other and how they think of each other. It is also correct by law. --NrDg 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To change you are right (I don't know why I still try). Sorry for the inconvenience. Renanx3 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with explaining the reasons for anything I do. Not an inconvenience at all. I am glad you asked. --NrDg 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me your opinion? Do you think that Miley's template above is good on this way? Template example Renanx3 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you added new group called "Other songs" and added the non-single songs with articles there. This is a much better way then the one I did. I like it. --NrDg 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will edit the template. I know that was an hour before there, but, even so, Happy New Year! Renanx3 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] Not that I think it should be in the article, but this is mentioned in the "ChuckIt" source in that paragraph. Gimmetrow 05:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I only looked at the two references immediately attached to the added info and didn't see support for the added info there. I assumed a typical add info between referenced info and its original reference. --NrDg 05:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another sock: 85.73.252.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Similar edit. Editing from Greece. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

you can't tell me what to do. did you just guess? u are such a bad admin 24.61.3.225 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you've helped me a lot. I'll be sure to help if needed :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --NrDg 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to take him to AIV when I saw you revert him. I hope you noticed he's at final warning level for vandalism ... nearly every edit he has made has been the introduction of false chart positions.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You blocked Punkox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for massive edit-warring across the Jessica Simpson articles. It's pretty obvious that PunkoXfob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor, and he's already edit warring again.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find

I think the edit of mine you are gently referring to is [2]. I was not questioning the chart, just the lack of a reference to it that all the other charts in the article have. I note that when you added it back [3] you included the reference I wanted to see. I like what you have done at

User:Kww/goodcharts - it is a useful reference. i don't think it belongs in WP:Record charts directly but the conclusions do and it is a good reference for that. Possibly as a subpage for more details maybe. I would still like to see explicit references in the articles though to the sources that your reference guide can be used to provide. --NrDg

18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to nudge you at all ... I just know that you wind up looking at chart tables a lot, but I don't have the impression that you are a chart guru, which makes you the target audience. Sourcing the reference is what prompted me to start publicizing the chart, though.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are accurate in your assessment of my knowledge in this area. I have tended to let chart position and what is a valid chart for other editors, like you, to evaluate because of that. There is a lot of unreferenced position information in a lot of music articles. There is also, it seems to me, a lot of fandalism of some editors bumping (and lowering) positions for fannish reasons. I would like a reasoned list of good and bad references and a direct link to the actual position information so that I am able to quickly

reference. You might consider User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList as a way to discourage bad chart links by non-established users. Possibly MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist if a chart link is always invalid. --NrDg

19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The worst charts are already Xlinkbot. The problems are that most references to the bad charts are by people that don't even bother with a reference, so Xlinkbot can't get them, and some of most useful sites (like acharts.us) mix good charts with crap.

What I'm considering proposing is scrapping the existing chart tables, and replacing them with an infobox-like thing. An editor would say something like {{SwissAlbum|pos=2|Artist="Michael Jackson"|Title=Thriller)}} and that would expand into

|[[Swiss Albums Chart]]
|18<ref>http://www.ultratop.be/nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Michael+Jackson&titel=Thriller+25&cat=a</ref>

For most charts, that would allow us to build the chart out of a series of macros, and make verification a ton easier. The big problem with autoreferencing is that some charts search by title and artist, some by artist only, some by title only, and some by date only, so it would never be completely consistent.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It would still be a great help to do that though, even with the understanding that it still requires checking to make sure what the macro does is correct. The solution to the problem with people adding info without a reference (or in conflict with the reference) is just to remove the information added with the appropriate warning message to the adder to encourage them to find the reference. If the reference to a badchart is known by XLinkBot the info will be removed automatically. If the chart is a bad one from a good source, it will have to be manually removed with a pointer to BADCHARTS. There is not much else we can do given where we are now. What we need is a bot that can search for chart info and maintain it. The bot would know the goodcharts and be able to parse the info it finds. I am not sure if this is possible or not - it is beyond what I can do. --NrDg 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my recent RfA, NrDg. I'm glad we met, and that I continued with Wikipedia. Do you have anything you would like to recommend a new admin? --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats - looks like you will soon get the enwiki mop to go with your commons one. What do you do with the mop collection? Anyway the closing 'crat will leave you with an extensive reading list when he notifies you of the close. Since you are familiar already with the technical tools you are getting, the best advice is to carefully go over the reading list. Err on the side of not using the tools if not sure of something. Just go slow, watch what other admins do with stuff you are not sure about and learn. My recommendation is to not jump into everything at once. Pick some admin task that interests you, become an expert on that, then slowly move into other areas as your interests evolve. I know you will do fine. --NrDg 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• Wikipedia:New admin school

I noticed that you protected his talk page. I'd like to talk you out of that. The kind of things he's doing there aren't much of a time-waster, as he's not doing things like requesting unblocks or edit-protecteds or anything else that demands a reaction. He just blanks it, thereby confirming that the anonymous IPs I've been reverting are actually him.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As requested, given that you are watching it. PunkoXfob as well. --NrDg 00:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NrDg has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as NrDg's day! For being a tireless watchdog at Disney Channel related articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, NrDg! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. I'd first like to thank my ... --NrDg 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject . It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this good faith edit possibly considered vandalism? dissolve^talk 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your stuff is fine. Another user had been putting junk in the article and the fixes were incomplete. Your edit was in the middle so I ended up undoing your stuff as well when I went back to the last known good version. --NrDg 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on

you can't tell me what to do. did you just guess? u are such a bad admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowseer23 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true. I can offer guidance and advice which you can choose to ignore if you wish. I can also tell you the likely consequences of ignoring the guidance and advice of myself and other editors. --NrDg 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NrDg, please see my comment here. I think one of the three of us should end this sordid story. The user makes some legitimate edits, but seems unwilling to stop the systematic image copyright infringement. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling I know NrDg's opinion as noted here . A reply from NrDg would be better, though. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Kanonkas. --NrDg 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the discussion over there. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this as the new Hannah Montana Season 3 Episodes page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alec2011/(HM_S3)? I think it looks a lot better than what it is now, and a little more professional.... - Alec2011 (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks better and I like the slightly smaller font and better column sizes, but there are a couple of problems.

The first is technical. When you want to link to an episode in the table you can use a wikilink such as

Don't Go Breaking My Tooth

" and go directly to that point in the table. This is useful as we can create a redirect page for the episode title and redirect directly to the table entry which I just did for that example. The "#ep<some value>" corresponds to the number in parameter "EpisodeNumber=<some value>". It is best to leave the EpisodeNumber as just a number so the wikilinks are easier to construct. If you change them, existing redirects break. That is why parameter "EpisodeNumber2" is used to give series number. Based on that we should keep the existing EpisodeNumber and EpisodeNumber2 usages.

Second you have removed the references section - that must be in the article as there are references - I assume this is missing as you are just illustrating the format of the table.

Lastly you have removed the infobox and all the intro info. That would take consensus of other editors - I think most want to keep this. --NrDg 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is just my copy, and it's not up yet :D.

As much as I like having TWO separate columns for the Season Ep.# and the Series Ep. # I feel it looks to unprofessional. I mean the two columns are just too wide and make the table unbalanced. So I've changed what it look slike on my page here to: 3 - (58) meaning Season #/Series #.

Also, why can't we just use the Series number as the Episode number like on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wizards_of_Waverly_Place_episodes? The season sumber isn't really important, as the series episode number is more important.

Also, do you mind if I shorten the episode descriptions, as they are WAY to long and describe every detail in the episode. I know the official descriptions released by Disney, could I use them as I use them on my Fansite (which I know isn't a reliable source), but I could also link the description to the Official Disney page where I got the description from. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can control the column widths when you set up the columns. In general, in tables, you want to put one piece of information per column. Separate information needs separate columns. Both EpisodeNumber and EpisodeNumber2 are meant be just pure numbers, nothing else. I don't think having the two columns looks that bad. The original table DID just have series number but some other editor wanted number in season as well and set up the table correctly to show both. That editor may object if you remove one of them. I personally don't care either way as long as you keep the remaining entry (it has to be in EpisodeNumber) as just a single integer value. As for the descriptions, if you just copy Disney's description or a description from TV Guide that would be a

copyright violation, a pretty serious violation of wiki policy - don't do that. What we need in the episode description is a short summary from someone who watched the episode in their own words. Some of the summaries ARE excessive and could be edited to be more compact, just don't replace them with a copy from another source. --NrDg

04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what your saying. I've edited mine again but how does this look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alec2011/(HM_S3)? I'm also going to be editing the summaries as I can explain the episodes without the extra details, just the main plots and sub-plots. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --NrDg 05:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just finished the new episode summaries (the new episode airing next month, I read the official summary from Disney, and I changed it so it's in my own words).

Also, you know how on the List of Hannah Montana episodes page, the < onlyinclude > code is used (meaning you have to update through a season's page). Do you think I could Change the way the whole page looks? I'll make an example in my page and see your opinion.... - Alec2011 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as you keep the information and don't make too significant a change in format there should be no problems. Other editors might object though. --NrDg 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF!!!! youre such a bad admin!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.251.199 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC) aka Shadowseer23 (talk · contribs)

Thank you. --NrDg 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afraid about that. What do you think about File:Miley Cyrus performs at the Kids Inaugural cropped 2.jpg? Same picture, but not so close her. I've also got got File:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2.jpg, which I can crop. More pictures here --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a picture where the microphone is covering a major part of her face like a partial mask. Since the infobox picture is for identification of the subject we should have something where her whole face is seen. The original picture would be a great addition to other parts of the article particularly to a section that talks to this performance. File:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2.jpg has her whole face visible - a crop of that would be great. --NrDg 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. What do you think about these two: File:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2 cropped.jpg - File:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2 cropped filtered.jpg? The noise was removed a bit in the second version (the filtered one). --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Either one would be fine for the small size needed in the infobox. Noise reduction does make the full size picture look better. I like this picture as identification as it shows her performing appearance and has good expression and personality shown. --NrDg 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)