Jump to content

User talk:Hello Control

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hello Control (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 29 December 2008 (→Re: my talk page: resp.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

This is really not cool--I have now spent several hours adding references to the bio-- I literally posted it up 5 minutes ago and was in the process of writing you asking you to please discuss on talk board before you take down my work and now its already taken down---How is it you erased my comments after only 5 minutes of being posted? You mention a clip was down i guess there was a typo in the url it would have been simple for you to notify me on talk to doublecheck the clip instead of immediately removing it its very valid-here it is to see for your self--- http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=5224972&version=1&locale=EN-US I'm starting to think you have a personal thing issue with this guy--if thats the case you should have just told me at the beginning so i didnt waste any time on it. I could have put these hours to use on another profile instead of one you are monitoring 24/7 because u want it removed so bad. (Movieman2008 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

  • I didn't touch the malformed link you added. I do realize I tagged it as unreliable when I meant to tag it as failing verification (as I mentioned in the edit summary, appearing in one clip does not support claims of "several shows"); the tag has been changed. I did my edits separately so you could easily see in the edit summaries why I did what I did. Any questions about that can be brought up on the article's talk page. I don't have a personal issue with this guy; I never even heard of him until I saw someone spamming his website across different articles. Undoing those edits lead me to his article, and what I saw didn't convince me of his notability. That's all. As for wanting it removed "so bad", if that were the case, I wouldn't bother tagging and fixing format, I would have put it up for deletion right away. Instead, I am giving other editors the chance to improve it and show notability. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you went and deleted the credits reference i added --this was a direct quote form you above "IMDb is generally considered to be reliable in terms of movie credits for released films" I used it in the terms of a released film ---A user cant go and manipulate what Showtime Networks lists as a film THEY distributed---if you click on link there are multiple shows that they distributed that say they are produced by arjay entertainment---you just obviously didnt take the time to look--amazing i can spend an hour to find the info and u can spend 2 minutes to just delete it when i was following a tip that you gave saying only use imdb for credits. I've found clips of 2 of the biggest networks in the world interviewing him Fox and ABC yet you still question his notability---I'm sure there are tons of other instances of major outlets interviewing him but im not going to bother finding them now because you will just delete anyway---- im tried reasoning with you and gone above and beyond trying to do what you've asked and i've got to tell you that you have made the wikipedia experience miserable for me--im taking my time to try and help the community and this is what happens----im not going to waste anymore time arguing and going back and forth with you --you win keep the profile how you want because in all honesty now i could care less. (Movieman2008 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

  • The main problem with your reference was not that it was IMDb, it's that it said nothing about Williams' company—it was just a list of films that Showtime handled. A list of films is not proof that "This presentation caught the eye of Showtime executives and he then began a relationship that lasted several years and spawned numerous series and specials." —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's nothing I can do for you. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can do- is stop calling hoaxes by a living person's proper name- a person who is innocent. this talk goes all over the internet. the person's first initial is just fine. You don't half to be cruel to an innocent person.Upjoy (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Checkuser info. Good to see the latest crop of Barbaro hoaxer socks blocked and the temporary block of the IPs. I'm curious how some of the sock with no edits were detected. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person doing the checkuser can see what accounts were created and when by a particular IP (or likely even an IP range). That's why I asked for a check for sleeper accounts. Sometimes it doesn't pay off, but sometimes—especially with a long-time block evader like this—it does. Keep fighting the good fight —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow am I sorry

Oh man, I'm sorry about that. I forgot to save the page here before I clicked away from it. Basically, I think that your comment that kind of said he was that guy or whatever wasn't very nice. I definitely shouldn't have written that comment (I'm removing it right after this), but I was thinking of a similar situation that I was in (on the opposite side) when I was a newbie user and another editor really helped me. I think you could have been nicer, but you weren't really that bad looking at it again. My sincere apologies for writing that as it was totally wrong on my part. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's OK, no harm done. I really just wanted to know if I was doing anything wrong. I did try to be non-accusatory about the COI suspicions I have but I wanted to be up-front about it at the same time. Williams' website has been spammed onto Wikipedia by a number of SPAs so I was a bit on guard about it and promotional-type content in his article. Thanks for getting back to me. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my talk page

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I am back from vacation and have responded to the note at my talk page about you. Since it's about you, I thought to give you a heads up. Do please feel free to weigh in, especially if I have misinterpreted your actions in any way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hello_Control&oldid=260744286"