User talk:Dh993

Welcome!

Hello, Dh993, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --El on ka 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

{{helpme}} Are non-administrators allowed to semi-protect articles? I felt it was necessary to do so on the High School Musical 2 soundtrack, but then I realized it may not be in my authority to be able to do so. Dh993 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is allowed to request protection for an article, it is up to the admin to decide if it should be protected or not, for more info on reuqesting protection please see WP:RFP. Hope this helps.Andy^reply 23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You report to WP:AN/I[edit]

Hi Dh993,

For vandalism reports like that, you're better off going to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). It's faster. However, in this case, an admin might not block the user, as he was warned not to do so only once, and wasn't warned that it could result in a block. Yeah, I know, but that's how it's done. I've given him a final warning now. If he does it again, you can go to WP:AIV and report him, saying that he has vandalized past final warning. If I notice that he's done it again, I'll do it myself. WP:AIV takes a little getting used to, so read the instructions first, but once you get the hang of it, it works pretty fast most of the time.

Reply here, or on my talk page, if you want to discuss more. --barneca (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi barneca! I've never really dealt with persistent vandalism before, so thanks for the tip! I appreciate it. I will continue to monitor his contributions, and if the vandalism continues, I will go to the AIV page like you suggested. Thanks again! Dh993 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Plan - Ref tag[edit]

Hi. You recently added a "more references" tag to the Simple Plan article, when the article is actually quite well referenced for what can be found. The placement of such a tag should be the last, not the first step of a discussion. Next time, try starting a conversation on the article's talk page. Thanks! — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here's the thing. Although there is no official policy on Wikipedia to do so, it is considered common courtesy, and kind of an unwritten rule to start a discussion beforehand, stating exactly what you specifically mean (I'd suggest you do so now in the article's talk page). Although with POV tags, you might want to look at this case that revolved around the placement of tags. Additionally, text probably to be not professionally documented, text that is very widely known and not controversial, and text that is simply summarizing, often times do not need to be cited. Another thing to note, is that many featured articles have very short reference sections. You can read the essay WP:WHEN for further understanding. This may not be the case with the Simple Plan article, but again, I highly suggest that you bring it up on the talk page. — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca RfA thank you spam[edit]

Dh993, thank you for your support and kind words during my RfA. I'm not sure I was that helpful to you, but I'm glad you think so, and I'd be happy to help if you have any more questions. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah/Miley album article[edit]

Replied on my page to keep conversation in one place. --NrDg 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit[edit]

So people who come to the article know that 2 different reliable sources contradict each other. Before my edit, even though it was discussed on talk page, no one felt like adding what vivendi said curtis sold 2million and since 50 cent has alot of haters i thought maybe some editors only wanted to go with source that showed 50 cent loosing. The site that says 50 cent is losing has porno ads and isnt even designed by a pro web designer, i think its less reliable than vivendi but many editors said it was so....anyway, lots of editors saw my edit and liked it and left it, so plz leave it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deananoby2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Thanks! :) I went ahead and tagged it with {{db-empty}} and an admin should take care of it soon. Feel free to read up at WP:CSD on the various tags available, if you'd like to tag these yourself. Wikipedia gets thousands of new pages per day, so we can always use more "New page patrollers"! :) Best, El on ka 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis[edit]

I'll admit that I was probably wrong in reverting your edit. I was thinking of articles regarding stage musicals, forgetting that the article in question was about a musical film. Here's a list of some of the articles I was thinking of in case you're interested:

Still, looking at it now, I realize that all of these articles are about stage musicals, whereas Hairspray (2007 film) is about a movie based on the stage musical. If you still feel that you were right, please go ahead and removed the songs from the plot synopsis. Sorry about the confusion, but thanks for contacting me about it! :-) —Mears man 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis (again)[edit]

Hey Dh993, not sure if you remember me, but we had a discussion last October about the inclusion of musical numbers in the plot section of an article on a musical film. Well, it looks like the same discussion has come up over at Talk:Mamma Mia! (film), so I thought I'd drop by and let you know in case you felt like commenting. Happy editing! —MearsMan ^talk 02:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chad Doreck for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chad Doreck, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Doreck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]