User talk:Hello Control

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello, Hello Control, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Concept album
Hello. I haven't had much time today but I've had a quick look at the Concept album and I agree it's a mess of WP:OR at the moment. I'm guessing that most of the refs are just articles about particular albums where they are described as 'concept albums', although I haven't had time to check them out. I'll take a closer look over the next couple of days.--Michig (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's cool—no rush. That was my appraisal of the refs as well. I hate to think it needs an almost total rewrite; just gathering good sources will be daunting. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a scrap job to me, too. A ton of OR tied together by reviews that called individual works "concept albums". I'll keep this one in my. If you look at my contribs over the last few days, you'll be able to figure out my recent task: 170 references to the UWC website down, another 340 to go. Then I'll be able to get started on the ones without references.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ick. I've recently been deleting UWC and BULs that I've come across in my travels but not hunting them down; bless you. I haven't been watching to see if they're being re-added though—gotta cut back on my Wiki-overtime. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Chad B AFD
Can you back up the claim it's a gossip blog reprinting a press release? - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Responded at the AfD. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
United World Chart
Had to brag a bit somewhere. It will take a few days for the servers' search indices to catch up, but, for at least for a few minutes, the entire article space is free of the strings "United World Chart", and no article contains "UWC" and "chart". Don't think it will last for long.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody buy that man a drink! —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: userspace
well, I just don't feel completely comfortable deleting stuff like that. But I will do it because you are most likely right. Sorry for the trouble. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's cool. If you do it, that's great; if not, that's fine, too. You're the one with tools, after all. Peace —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't vandalize teh Francesco Barbaro page
You are reverting valid and sourced information. Stop doing that! You are vadalizing the page- go read the link for yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.30.239 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting edits by a block-evader is not vandalism. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
R. J. Williams
regarding this profile agreed certain things should be cited i have done so to a few I'll try and do more when I have more time---Not sure why you say imdb is not reputable there are hundreds of wiki pages that use imdb as a reference. I removed the notability guidelines as there have been over 20 people that have placed information on this bio and the person that initailly added it has numerous contributions and a stellar reputation with wiki. My focus is also on american TV hosts as you can see that what I spend most of my time on here at wiki and this bio would fall under that. Dont really see it as a news release but if you feel it is why don't you just make edits to make it more suitable? Movieman2008 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Movieman2008
- IMDb can be edited by anyone, therefore it is not a reliable source. Additionally, the number of edits to a page have no relevance to the notability of the subject. As for your "focus", it seems to be primarily on R.J. Williams. I suggest that you are either Williams himself or have a connection to him or his company. Please read WP:COI for Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I find it odd you say my focus is primarily R.J. Williams when until you went in and starting drastically altering the page I had only made 1 edit and it was essentially just re-wording what was already inputted by several other people. Very confused as to why you would start mentioning a conflict of interest with his company when prior to your edits I have never posted anything about his company. As for my imdb question it was very valid since multiple profiles on wiki use it as a reference. (03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieman2008 (talk • contribs)
- I didn't say your IMDb question was invalid—you asked why it was unreliable, and I told you. That it has incorrectly been used as a source in other articles does not change the fact that it is unreliable. And you're right, you had only edited the article once before me (and added a link to his website in another article). I was confusing you with all the other single-purpose accounts promoting Williams and his website (like Rjw2007 (talk · contribs)—musta been the similarity in names). And your mischaracterization of my edits as "drastically altering" the page is weird, too. I fixed a number of formatting issues (see WP:MOS for Wikipedia format), added some cite requests, removed excessive external links per WP:EL, and added some template messages regarding the subject's questionable notability, and the article's style and lack of references. In fact, the external links were the only content removed from the article, not very drastic, if you ask me. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I will admit I am relatively new to wiki and am still trying to learn how things work here. I have alot of knowledge about the reality hosting world and feel i can make valid contributions. Its just frustrating that i take the time to make them and someone suddenly removes them. And then very frustrating when you mentioned conflict of interest, but if you confused my name with someone else then i can see where you were coming from. As for drastically altering i am questioning the "questionable notabilty" tag you added. He happens to be quite well known and I've seen him featured on television quite frequently---so dont understand how notabilty could be in question. Several people have taken alot of time to build the page over some time so doesnt make sense how now the notability can be in question. If thats how it works here on wiki then i dont want to be apart of it--doesn't make sense i spend hours trying to help the community and then suddenly someone can decide to delete a profile. I'm going through this on another profile one for "Sal Masekela"--his has been there for a long time I took the time to contribute and now some person with only a few contributions to his name is questioning his notability and tagged his proifle. The guy is the star of the highest rated show on one of the most popular channels in America. Hopefully you hear where I'm coming from--citations and all that stuff i get but to suddenly nominate profiles be deleted that really shouldnt be just doesn't seem fair. As for imdb so i should go through articles and remove it from references anytime someone posts it? Where can i go to learn what is a suitable reference? i can make alot of profiles better but i dont want to waste time if im doing so with non suitable references. Movieman2008 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The way the notability tag works is that you add more information that shows the subjects notability, then the tag is removed. For a media personality like Williams, that would be most easily achieved by adding references from non-trivial media coverage (from established media, like newspapers, magazines, national TV shows, etc.) Please visit the talk page of the article in question for more discussion of the contents of that article. For sourcing information, I suggest you visit WP:RS and do some reading. IMDb is generally considered to be reliable in terms of movie credits for released films but since the content on IMDb is user-submitted, most anything else should be cited from another source, including biographical information. If the subject is notable enough, it shouldn't be too hard to find an alternate source. I would agree that Sal Masekela is likely to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, the article—in its current state—needs a lot of work. I can see how someone unfamiliar with him could come across that article and doubt his notability. If the Daily 10 really is the highest rated show on E!, then the article should reflect that (with a verifiable reference from a reliable source). It should also be in the introductory paragraph rather tagged on the end like an afterthought. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Barbaro hoaxer
Thanks for your help on dealing with the hoaxer. If you have questions about this ongoing problem, please see User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no Barbaro hoaxer. How can editors adding validly sourced material that can be checked by anyone be hoaxing. That is rediculous. You also can not justly block any user for making valid good faith edits, that is corrupton and abuse of power.4.143.236.17 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why you feel compelled to tell me this, 4.143.236.17. I haven't blocked you, and I know nothing about whether or not you're hoaxing. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can help, that's why, I don't appreciate being blocked unjustly- and there is major confusion gong on.63.26.42.156 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)