User talk:NrDg/Archive 080229

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NrDg. 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)

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: 070625-070920-071102-071231-080131

Vandalism on Alicia Keys Page

Excuse me Sir or Madam,

I noticed that you recently reverted some vandalism on the Alicia Keys page, where someone using an IP address only increased the subject's age by 30 years. Well, this edit has been undone from the same IP address. TelecomNut (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - taken care of. --NrDg 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Zoey 101: Clip Show

Thank you for your message. I am aware that people have made many false episodes. "Clip Show" is not one of those episodes. There is a summary on TV.com and a video of it on Stage6.com. I do not know if it is before or after "Goodbye Zoey?" but there is one flashback from that episode, so I assume it is after. However, there is also one flashback from "Fake Roommate" even though the theme is Season 3. Aik Hui (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Aik Hui

Edits to the Dylan and Cole Sprouse‎ page

I reverted a sentence in the page (see diff) which was reinserted by User:Zsero . He initiated a discussion abt letting the statement remain while i am against it. The discussion is here. I feel that in absence of reliable secondary source, we shd not include it whereas he feels that unless it is proven false we shd let it remain. I feel that it is libelious if we let that unsourced info remain whereas he feels that it is "harmless gossip" and not at all libelious. I would request u to Pls take a look at the discussion and advice.Thanx Gprince007 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it. Added to discussion on talk page. --NrDg 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Zoey 101

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zoey 101. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nimi Tiz_e 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not count as a WP:3RR violation. Removal of valid cited information after being warned not to is disrupted editing. Please take this issue to the talk page if you think the info removed was wrong in some way and explain why you think it is wrong. --NrDg 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It WASENT vandalism, Sean Flynn, is not in part of the main cast, get a reliable SOURCE to prove it! Nimi Tiz_e 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/zoey-101/cast/198012 is as reliable as it gets. He is listed as in main cast. Also http://www.tv.com/zoey-101/show/27867/cast.html. I don't understand why you are removing this info. The info is solid and backed up in many places. You have reverted the info 4 times which is a 3rr violation which I'll let slide if you stop removing this info from the article. --NrDg 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record I was reported for a WP:3RR violation for the first time. Result:No violation as 2 edits in a row are counted as 1 revert. Shows what can happen when two editors KNOW they are right and the other is wrong. Oh well. Live and learn. --NrDg 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lizcook

Has requested an unblock, stating she will not upload any more images. But as it's the third block for the same issue I'm running it past you for comment. --Step hen 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is instructive to go over the history page to see what I attempted to communicate with her previously. Basically all context has been deleted. The last edit by me in the history gives much more background on this issue [1]. I somewhat think I was being played by someone much more knowledgeable than they let on. My first attempts at communication assumed a novice that needed direction. I thought I was being understood but was instead basically ignored. I mistrust this person. I did not respond to the unblock request - I have been monitoring the page - as I would like someone else to evaluate the situation with fresh eyes. I recommend retaining the block, but if you believe the promise of not uploading any more images (I don't) or that I made the wrong decision, I would have no problem with the block being removed. Other than the copyright image problem, the rest of her edits seem OK. (Also check deletion record [2]) --NrDg 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your block was absolutely correct, but I'm going to assume good faith that they will not upload anything further. Any further transgressions will warrant an indefinite block. --Step hen 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

simplefit.org

User_talk:69.12.133.15 is still spamming us with his web site after you blocked him. A 31 hour block is no use in this case. His web site should definitely be blacklisted. Thanks. --David Broadfoot (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahoerstemeier (talk · contribs) blocked him for 1 month Jan 23d. The blocks will get longer each time. Looks like a static IP. --NrDg 14:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus Boyfriend

Thank you for your adviece, but it has been confirmed that Nick & Miley have been dating. It is in one of those magazines with all those Disney stars. I can't quite recall the title. If you have any sources proving that they are not dating, please post the site on my page. Thank you and have a nice day! 68DANNY2 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some points about this

1) This type of information needs a reference explicitly in the article to back this up. I need to be able to verify it and judge the reliability of the reference WP:V and WP:RS. I won't take your word on this, I need proof. "It has been confirmed" is a notoriously unreliable reference.

2) this is gossip and unless it has been picked up and reported by some source other than unreliable gossip magazines, fan sites or blogs it is not WP:N notable. Unless there is evidence of a long term committed relationship, extremely unlikely for 15 year olds, it does not belong.

3) See discussion about this issue on article talk page and archives - this has been extensively debated and consensus is that the info is not worthy of inclusion in article.

4) This information is transient and currently false and has been refuted by the principals. --NrDg 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I will revert that immediately if not sooner. 68DANNY2 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens talk page comments about Nude Scandal

I felt that discussion was unnessesary, as the matter was out of Vanessa's hands and she was criticized for a while after the scandal was confirmed. Plus, kids tend to go on to sites like this, and I'm sure tat no one wants to know that a well-known Disney star took pictures of herself naked. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These comments were valid talk page discussions. Only time you can delete talk page contents is if they are not about improving the article and are basically people using talk pages as a general discussion about the topic, not the article. These comments were about the article. --NrDg 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A little help

I'm just about out of reverts, and this guy seems clueless about what "NPOV" or "source" means.Kww (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "requiring a full-day six-day-a-week commitment" is superfluous information anyway - who cares (not WP:N I mean). I tagged the existing sentence as needing a reference. Also it looked like he was trying to use a wiki article as a reference, which is not permitted as wiki is not a WP:RS. I've got this article on my watchlist. --NrDg 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Protect?

Hey NrDg. I was wondering if you could put a protection from any new users or any protection on Disney Channel Original Movies. There has been a lot of rumored movies on the pages, and when someone deletes them because they have no source, they are re-added. Thanks! --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexa Nikolas

At the very end of the 3rd video you hear her say she's Greek. Is that good enough? For An Angel (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be. Add it to the article as a reference, use the URL of the video, put in the time stamp where she says it, and add to the reference the exact quote of what she says. That would make it a good reference. That way anyone can WP:V what she said. Just saying it is in a video somewhere is like saying information is in a book somewhere. Need a way to quickly get to the information. --NrDg 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was vague... it's just that at the time I didn't remember where exactly she said it. I had to watch all three videos and of course it had to be at the very end of the last one! lol... I also wasn't sure if the only thing you wanted referenced was her Greek heritage because you were also removing other things. I've never done a reference to a video so I'm not sure exactly how to do it, but I'll think of something. I'm sure you'll clean it up if I don't get it right? For An Angel (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great that you found the reference. Just put the info between ref tags and I'll clean it up if necessary. For other info that is supported by the videos do the same but with different time stamps and quotes. We generally like text as references but this stuff is valid and authoritative as a WP:RS primary source. --NrDg 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also need references for friend info. I removed everything as most was related to the Greek heritage question. Make sure what you put in the text doesn't go beyond what she actually said - don't do evaluations of what you think she meant. --NrDg 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey NrDG!

Hey, you've finally become a admin, good work on wikipedia! :]] Congratulations on that! You probably don't remember me but we can start now :] --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

oh sorry.. no upload nothing. Whenoby 14:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (US season 6)

You protected the page, I'd guess due to posting rumors on who would be on and such. However, an announcement by ABC has been made and the contestants were announced last night. Could an unprotection be considered? Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Create article at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 6). That is unprotected and is the number scheme that is currently used. I'll unprotect the other article name, but it should be a direct to the proper name after it gets created. --NrDg 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

image:LilaDowns.jpg

A photograph I added yesterday, LilaDowns.jpg was speedily deleted, and I'm not sure why. The photographer is known to me personally and has given his permission to use the photograph on wikipedia. This was noted in the copyright tag on the photograph. Could you let me know why the photo was deleted, so that I can correct the issue and upload the photograph for use in the Lila Downs article? Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the permission to use the photograph on wikipedia allows it to be used ONLY on wikipedia. That is too restrictive of a license. The deletion reason was: Speedy deleted per (CSD I3), was licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission", uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and no assertion of fair use was provided. The permission can't have any usage restrictions at all. Also the current photo in the article is in Commons and is properly licensed image:Lila Downs.jpg. Not an issue, of course, but you might consider whether or not a new photo is needed. --NrDg 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided to speedy delection criteria only goes up to CSD12, and there is no CSD 13 listed there. Could you clarify?Cbl62 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to; its CSD letter I, number 3. I'll take a look and see if the photographer is willing to release for all purposes.Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:MRiveraPND2007.jpg

I have uploaded the image with full consent of the author, limelife to use it on wikipedia on his behalf under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.--Miaaa8 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WP:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_22#Image:MRiveraPND2007.jpg --NrDg 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Promotion on David Henrie

I wasn't logged in, but I got a notice on the company IP address that someone edited this page. I'm a producer for a company that manages websites for some celebrities. David is (currently) not one of our clients (his girlfriend is), but apparently someone on our staff did that change. I've made a nastygram to everyone to not do edits like that again. For the clients we do run, I put the information in the discussion page and, aside from the personal homepage link, I generally do not directly edit a page. MikeSims (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy request, since you seem to be involved in music discussions

I've seen you in a couple music related discussions before, so you might be able to help me here. Recently, I stumbled upon the page My Turn while attempting to create a page on the Doug Stone album by that name (see My Turn (Doug Stone album)). The page My Turn currently details an album by a non-notable rapper (4-Zone (rapper)), whose page was A7'd in May 2006! What I'd like to know is:

Is this a valid speedy request given the circumstances?
As an admin, do you think that you could delete My Turn, the album cover, and the category it's in, so that I can move the Doug Stone album's page to just My Turn?

Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a prod on the album and let it time out, then AfD if needed. No hurry on this and I don't think a speedy is needed on something that has been around that long. When the prod expires then the category and image can be removed as well. --NrDg 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also creator JackSparrow (talk · contribs) is still active and may have an opinion on this. --NrDg 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, somebody else speedied the page just as I placed the PROD tag. I'm requesting speedy again, only this time because it's a blank page. I'll talk to that user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

JackSparrow (talk · contribs) has been notified, and the Doug Stone album has been moved to My Turn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This will be fun to sort out if he wants the album back. The original album at that name was proded and deleted. The one that was just deleted was moved to that name, then deleted because of the original being deleted - it should not have been deleted but was. Now delete history has two albums history interleaved. Because of GFDL if the album gets restored have to restore the correct history. Fun fun fun. --NrDg 04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do know how to make a mess of things, don't I? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make an attempt to fix it. I'll be moving your article temporarily to My Turn (album), then try to restore the original My Turn, then prod it. --NrDg 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Prodded, you can prod-2 it if you want. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One prod is sufficient. That was fun to do, I'm real glad the deleted history was short. Had to look at each entry to decide what needed to be restore and what needed to be left deleted. --NrDg 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ten Pound Hammer. Nah, it's okay, the article can stay deleted. If I think it becomes notable in the future, I'll just re-add it under My Turn (4-Zone album). Thanks again, and have a good one. Jay (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can speed things up if you tag the article with {{db-author}} You need to do it as you were the only real contributor to the article. You might move it to My Turn (4-Zone album) first, though, to make it easier to resurrect it if you need to in the future. --NrDg 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) You might also tag the picture to help clean things up. --NrDg 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've tagged it. I didn't move it tho, it wouldn't be hard to re-create in the future anyway. Jay (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved it before deleting so the deleted history did not remain. Also deleted the image as it is orphaned free-use. --NrDg 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. Jay (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mileyworld.jpg and MileyWorld

Sorry. I wasn't paying close attention and didn't realize the image was in a different article. -Nv8200p talk 10:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vanessa Hudgens JB06 061.jpg

I question your deletion of Image:Vanessa Hudgens JB06 061.jpg. The image is clearly not a pixel for pixel copy of [3]. Also, the photo here is much larger, unwatermarked, and has extensive exif metadata, such as a claimed copyright to "Gareth Jordan" (whom I believe is the uploader). Would you review this case and consider undeleting the image? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew C. _chau\/^baby 17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image restored. Leave decision to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive129#New contributor with questionable images --NrDg 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)