User talk:Chuckiesdad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I will be a great admin

Please make it so

Disco Steven Lua (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Xenophile Records Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Xenophile Records Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha blocker

Hi - been trying to update the Alpha Blocker page noting that the other products mentioned have brand names associated with them. Please help me understand why they can have their brand name references. Thanks for the extra help in understanding how this works :) SCarrasco (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, and thanks for the heads-up. I removed 2 other brand names for the cases where generics are not yet available, since the column is for 'Common generic name.' If there's no generic, there can't be a common name for generics, can there? Nothing personal, it's just a Wiki policy about adverts. Thanks again for contributing! Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Great, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding the rules. Truly appreciate the great reference Wiki has become due in large part to the awesome editorial staff. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCarrasco (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

George Taylor

I noted that you suggested changing Brigadier George Taylor CBE, DSO & Bar, KHS to George Taylor (soldier). I agree that the former title is too long. However, given that George Taylor is known in ALL his newspaper obituaries as "Brigadier George Taylor" I suggest that should be the title. Please inform Blanchardb http:w/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blanchardb, so i dont have to keep changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilliams1972 (talk • contribs) May 17, 2009

Brad Paisley

I did not understand why you removed my edit of James Burton's page. I added Brad Paisley because he has made a significant contribution to Burton's career. He helped him win a Grammy in 2009. I would not add something if it was irrelevant. I am trying to contribute in a positive way to James Burton's page. Brad Paisley uses paisley telecasters. The reason he does this is because James Burton is one of his heroes. Please be reasonable and look into this.Kbr1656 (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Kbr1656! As I mentioned in my edit summary, Burton has played on 360 albums to date, and most of them with notable artists. There's no clear reason to link to Paisley in Burton's 'See also' section or to mention him in the 'Played with...' paragraph without listing the other 359. If you feel the Grammy is important, although Burton didn't show up to receive it, I would suggest mentioning it in the body of the article. It's a debatable point about 'who helped who' win the award, since there were 6 guitarists involved. Finally, if Burton is Paisley's hero or Paisley made a significant conrtibution to Burton's career, those items are better mentioned in the Paisley article. Happy editing! Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone has a man crush on James Burton and doesn't want anyone else to share any of the credit for his apparent ruling of the world. You obviously don't know what a more recognizable name Brad Paisley is to most people than some of the other people you have on this page. He has accomplished more than you ever will. Fine. You want to be a stubborn fool, then go for it. I don't give a lick. I was trying to be nice. Not anymore. You took all the class out of it.Kbr1656 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Man crush? Hmmmmmm.... so far, approximately 100% of your edits mention a certain singer. Just wondering. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have made edits to other pages as well. Although many of the subjects are related, I have made edits to the Trey Fanjoy page, the Marcy Brothers page, and created the page for CMT Invitation Only, which I attended one filming in Nashville. I have not been editing for very long, so I have not had a chance to broaden my subjects yet. I was just polishing on other people's edits. Plus, I would more than welcome anyone to remove my edits or improve upon them if anything was less than factual, unverified, or insignificant. I also would practice the appropriate etiquette. By the way, I apologize for vandalizing your articles started list. I would just ask that you be reasonable, and please participate in this for the good of the factual information, not just to put others down. Because that is how you come across. Thank you.Kbr1656 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WJFK-FM

I am not contesting the post's article, nor am I contesting the post's reliability, I am contesting the fact that it confirms a format change. The Washington Post's article does not confirm a format change therefore my edits are not vandalism and are appropriate as you are citing the post's speculation as confirmation.-- 04:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• • From WP:Verify: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe that this is grounds for an inclusion of a section about a rumored format change as this is all that is verifiable. -- 04:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The WJFK-FM article states "The Washington Post reported....." which is verifiable. But I do think that the Infobox tag about a pending change in July is premature. I would encourage you to be bold and make edits, with summaries, followed by discussion (not ultimatums) on the talk page if other editors disagree. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have tried to make a change but another user seems unwilling to participate in discussion with me about the content of the article and instead reverts my changes and threatens to block me from editing. How should I deal with this situation?-- 05:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd suggest letting it cool off for a day or two, go edit some other articles for a while, then post a polite message to the other editor's talk page in a new section, asking for a discussion. Your previous posts there were offputting, IMHO. In the mean time, take a look at these Wiki guidelines. And always enter an edit summary, and sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Worst case? Wait a month, and either the station switches formats, or they don't. It's a pretty minor point. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuckiesdad

I have some honest questions for you. Do you think that you are superior to everyone else? What makes you so special? From what I can tell all you do is edit other people's edits just because you don't like or agree with them. You just said in the above post that basically the only thing that matters is verifiability. I added something to an article you were watching that is obviously verified and significant enough to be included, but you didn't like it, so you deleted it. Practice what you preach you self-centered ego-freak. Also, be a real man and tell me who the heck you are. I am Kevin and I work full-time. Is that the problem? You don't have a real job? You just put others down for fun.Kbr1656 (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ask me again after you've read WP:CIV. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can read, but can you? I have already read this, that is why my first message to you was civil and respectful. You are the one who took the class out of it. I'm just playing your game.Kbr1656 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yang Feng

ok, I'll just try to find out more about Yang Feng alright, it's just going to take some time

Laterzhan281 (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits are fine, it's just Wiki policy to cite where others can find it too. Thanks for contributing! Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 00:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to find some WP:Reliable sources for Yang Feng. Laterzhan281 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The BLP issue with that not-gay guy

Sorry about the sketchy heading, I closed the tab and can't be bothered finding the link again. Anyway, thanks for rv'ing further than my edit, it gets a bit messy when they add several dodgy facts over several separate edits and you have to try and guess the true ones and the not true ones without researching it. I removed the one that I thought was most libelous, thanks for grabbing the rest :) — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 05:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• De nada, thanks for your patrolling, happy to collaborate. If you reported to AIV, thanks, it was done when I got there. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)