User talk:KittenKlub/archive#User warnings

hey kitten klub where did you get the sales of sugababes —Preceding unsigned comment added by KH FAN 91 (talk • contribs)

:Reply on your talk page. KittenKlub 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

i need to know how to paste a barnstar for my user please.

p.s.

i need album charts for atomic kitten

Moved to User talk:KittenKlub/archive

Thank you:). Its nice to know i'm apprieciated. You are also a really good editor. Lillygirl 23:00, 27 July 2006.

Honestly, I never saw the movie, but it sounds like a classic. If I had a DVD I'd rent it. Ghosts&empties 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks fine now. Good work! --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

when i edit the information about the album it went blank.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KH FAN 91 (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page. KittenKlub 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

hi can we make more information about atomic kitten Like:

atomic kitten nearly droped off their record company

what their doing during 2001

tours in 2002

tash and the baby

traveling around the world 2003

solo careers

World cup

It's ok I can edit there sixth album access all areas:B-sides and Remix.

P.S.

i edit my user wiki friends and i put your user name in my user

• I'm Mixed up somtimes think sugababes were better than Atomic Kitten because they have 4 no.1s and AK have 3 no.s and there albums have more weeks than Ak.
• I think AK were better Sugababes because they have more top 10 hits than them and AK missed 1 Top 10 and sugababes missed 4 singles in top 10. Atomic Kitten Whole Again sold 934,600 copies and sugababes push the button sold 325,000 copies.

• Who do you think is better AK or Sugababes

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KH FAN 91 (talk • contribs)

There is different music for different people. I personally prefer AK in this case, but I'm playing Bob Marley right now, because that's my mood. I don't think in sales as you might have noticed; it's about how it makes you feel; that's what it should be about. KittenKlub 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion started at: User talk:Honeystacia

I really don't get this whole thing. Why can you upload stuff, but when I do it, it gets deleted? What does this whole "not fair use" mean? Sorry if I might come across as a bit of an wikipedia idiot, but I really wanna contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeystacia (talk • contribs)

Replied at User talk:Honeystacia 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

wow thanks for clearing that up. I've uploaded a lot last time, but forgot to add the license of those files, so all were deleted and I was indeed banned for a day. I thought to give it another try today. Wasn't offended by your message btw, just a bit shocked that someone was watching me and correcting me so fast! :)

Thanks for helping. I guess I forgot it, but I did now I tagged it twice at another cover I uploaded. Anyway, I think I'm getting the hang of it now. Thanks for helping me out! :)

Thanks for all the help. The page is done now :)

En natuurlijk ben je ook gewoon Nederlands :P

If I did accidently, I appologize ... it would help if I knew what specific article you were talking about. Skidude9950 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:Back to Basics. You accused somebody who offered a reference of vandalism and warned him as well. KittenKlub 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I appologize the way the reference was presented it looked to me like someone had just inserted a comment like is often done by vandals ... I only wish you had let me know specifically. Afterall, how can anyone improve without feedback? Skidude9950 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because non-IE browsers - quite correctly - consider a table cell without any contents as non-existing which means that it will have no border. & nbsp ; should never be replaced in tables, because it is IE who is non-compliant. KittenKlub 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

: Hi there. I'm aware of the problem with table cells with normal spaces in them appearing empty. However, I'm not replacing the nbsp entity with plain spaces, I'm actually using the Unicode no break space character (U+00A0). I've just tested a table cell using the unicode no break space character in IE 6, Camino and Safari, and it renders correctly in all of them. Cheers, CmdrObot 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::You'd still have the problem that you can't see that it is a nbsp, because that's what the diff showed. The nbsp disappeared, so 00A0 is not an option, since nobody can tell the difference so you'll never able to find out what the character is. nbsp is clear and the people using it, know that it is a special character. So don't change it. KittenKlub 17:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::: OK, consider it done, or more accurately, not done in future :) Cheers, CmdrObot 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation is not needed in that Chart if you listen to it LIVE online.

DanV 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:I like to see it in print, since it's been listed for days now without an URL. KittenKlub 17:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::Uh? The #1 position was just announced today, at Radio 1 (the official chart show).DanV 17:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::In 12 minutes it will be in print at BBC radio. And that is when we have an URL. However we are NOT going to include UNVERIFIABLE information in the page. This a major page for a major release and that means 100% reliability is needed. KittenKlub 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Remember that the page is seen by 1000s of people all around the world including normal people, fans, record executives, people who worked on the album, so it has to be reliable. KittenKlub 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:::See that took exactly 12 minutes. Patience is a virtue... KittenKlub 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Nice to talk to you. Do you keep changing the colour on the new Christina album? If so, then I think it should be Orange, because that is the main colour of the albums.

:Somebody else did it, but I consider it totally irrelevant, since the main problem is that they keep introducing unreferenced sales and chart figures and figures which are intentionally wrong. So I am not that bothered about that color, if you understand what I mean, because that's irrelevant. KittenKlub 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for posting the BTB chart, I turned my back for a second, and my little cousin posted it. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfreak7676 (talk • contribs)

:It's fine, but this is happening the whole time, because it WILL go to #1, but we have to wait and people can't wait or they change a #2 in a #1. KittenKlub 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.musicaneto.com/best_sellings.asp?counter=1

well until now check August 31st but in some forums they have said that RCA confirmed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Candelario (talk • contribs)

:RCA will issue a press release and then we have it confirmed, so let's wait for the press release. KittenKlub 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher E. Martin is DJ Premier's birth name.

this is oricon sales

1st week: 32,241 copies

2nd week: 20,937 copies

Total: 53,178 copies

http://www.oricon.co.jp/

Her upcoming, second single HURT will release on October, 10th 2006 - confirmed by SONY BMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Candelario (talk • contribs)

:Because I can't guess where you got the information from. That's why an URL is necessary and not to a fan site because everybody can make a site and say something. KittenKlub 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

here's the URL with the info on Hurt:

http://www.christina-aguilera.nu/

:That's the whole point. It's a fan site and not an official site. You know how record companies are, there are many rumours and they change their mind many times and are always late with the press releases and that is exactly why you have to wait until the press release, because they are likely to change their mind again and the stories always leak, but are not always confirmed. KittenKlub 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just like to say that the Jenny Frost page looks great, you've done a lot to improve it:). Lillygirl 14:25, 26 August 2006.

:Thanks. The last entries were a bit weird, because it seems that my Opera can't play music on myspace. The good thing is that I finally opened an account there as well. I have no idea what to do there, but she kinda forced me and I can't even hear the new track... KittenKlub 17:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

well i guess we have to wait til August 31 to see is it either Hurt or Candyman but i have been to 3 fan sites and all of them say the same thing Hurt being release on October 10, 2006

:I stopped fighting it, since it has no use anymore. We'll see whether it is correct or not. I once made made the mistake with a fan who met Melanie Blatt and who said that the All Saints did not have a reunion even though the tabloids had big stories about. The fan was wrong, the tabloids weren't. Wikipedia also was wrong. I would have prefered just seeing a confirmed nor denied instead of proving the tabloid right and the denial wrong. Anyway I hope Christina is smarter than that... KittenKlub 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

i found this is a single cd cover of Christina'a next "possible" single being release on October 10,2006 see it's going to be the next single i told you

:There is still no official confirmation. Anyway the page is now unwatched, so I leave it upto you, since it is too much work and it leads to too much agression and it isn't the fault of the fans, but the fault of Wikipedia which is too easy to access and too difficult to edit with tons of unclear rules. I am disappointed that most fans prefered to ignore requests / statements in the text etc. because it was there for a good reason, since I thought it would have been possible to have a high quality page for once, but I guess it is not realistic. KittenKlub 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okj fair point, but I rv'd because you called them personal attacks - which they are not as they do not name someone (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). If you do not like the comments directed at you then it's fine to remove them - I honestly did not know they were :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For all the other cabalists. The page is on my watch list and deceptive edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal&diff=66057308&oldid=65930688] will not be helpful in covering up Rob Church's abuse. I have every right to remove that remark and it will be removed. KittenKlub 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, considering what you had to say to Rob (and the MedCab) before you "left" Wikipedia the last time:

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25_image_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=34787594]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25_image_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=34787693]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robchurch/January_2006&diff=prev&oldid=34787822]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KittenKlub&diff=prev&oldid=34823573]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KittenKlub&diff=prev&oldid=34823815]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25_image_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=34824031]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25_image_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=34824196]

Might I remind you, regardless of what page-watching or other editing functions you're engaged in, you're still obligated to follow WP:CIVIL, especially to people who had no idea why you were playing with someone's listing on the Mediation Cabal page. In addition, you might want to take a look at WP:OWN - the only right you have is to remove vandalism or a blatant violation of WP:NPA, and all things considered, I think being encountered with in vitriol in this case is more than a fair and accurate statement. CQJ 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:It might be related to the harassment which just continued for weeks and me asking Rob several times to do something which he never did. I want that remark removed. Is that clear! KittenKlub 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::You have no power to make demands here. Perhaps AN/I should be made aware of this situation. CQJ 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Stop playing games. I think that this has gone on for too long already. Maybe you should make somebody aware that there are people who do not like what is happening here and it seems to be a strange to have a remark directed against you removed. Especially since Rob is very much to blame for the failed mediation. KittenKlub 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, it's quite clear, and we probably don't care either way. However, it's not a personal attack... nothing on WP:NPA points to Rob Church's comment. You can remove it with permission from Rob Church, otherwise it stays. Removing his edit without his permission, and with no evidence of it violating policy, is considered vandalism. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::I still want it removed. I am not kidding here. And he violated policy as well by removing the mediation case from the list first so it couldn't be discovered. That way it was unclear what the remark was about except for the person against whom it was directed. KittenKlub 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We remove cases from the list everytime they close... and there's no policy against that anyways; the point is moot. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:I still don't want the remark listed on the page since it is directed against me. It seems like an impossible question. Placing that remark was fine to according to friendly team. KittenKlub 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::You're missing the point... it's not a personal attack... please read WIkipedia:No Personal Attacks --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:The vitriol remark is a personal attack. It just doesn't say who it is against. That was his trick. I consider it a personal attack. KittenKlub 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::But Wikipedia doesn't... because it's not directed at you. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::What you are doing is wikilawyering. The comment is directed against a person. That person is me. Is that clear! KittenKlub 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm fine with you removing it, I don't care about it. However, I don't know if Rob Church wants it removed, and until we have his permission, it should stay. WP:CHILL. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::I want it removed and if Rob doesn't like it then he can explain the remark with me. KittenKlub 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::*shrug* Go ahead. However, it's still not a personal attack, but you can feel free to remove it if you feel it is so important.. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have that issue settled, let me give you some suggestions. These aren't personal attacks or anything, merely suggestions that will make your life much easier at Wikipedia.

Please remain civil, you probably wouldn't have so much conflict if you didn't make demands of people, or told them what to do without a reason other than "you want it". Sorry to sound harsh, but I feel some good criticism will help you out in the long run.

I admit I was a little irrational about the whole thing, which I apologize for. I was sort of wikilawyering. However, I believe the reason that I became so irrational was the rudeness of your statements, which can start to irritated even the most laid back people. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:Well it took several edits and reverts and that's not funny. It's like I am the person who did wrong and that's typical Wikipedia behavior. That's why I don't like this site. I really don't. KittenKlub 01:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::You were not the innocent child in this situation. Your blunt rudeness and incivility pretty much caused the whole issue. Just because I apologized about one thing, doesn't mean that I apologize for everything. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::You have to play hard here. Because if you don't then people will walk all over you. That is the lesson I learned here. KittenKlub 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Playing hard gets you know where but a bunch of conflict... it's really the wrong approach. That sort of thinking will screw you over. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's necessary because Geo.plrd, Rob Church and Prophet Wizard seem to be close personal friends. And those are exactly the two reverters and the person who started it. KittenKlub 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

^ This is exactly how the Cabal works. It was three against one, because they all were very close and covered for each other. This is what is wrong with Wikipedia. ^

Well, it's a bit late now, but I agree with you, KittenKlub that Robchurch's comment was innapropriate; though your way of going about to remove it clearly caused a conflict as you did not explain yourself thoroughly earlier. Those who reverted you did not realize the details of the matter, so it may have been best to leave a note on the Medcab talk page before continuing the revert war. Usually, the best thing to do in such an incident is to talk things out, otherwise a revert war is inevitable. Nonetheless, I believe your reply to those who reverted you is a bit innapropriate, and to go so far as to claim they are attempting to gang up on you is also inappropriate. I must remind you to remember to assume good faith of other editors and to remain civil as explained above. This whole matter was only a breakdown of communication - had you explained that you were involved in the case that Robchurch was 'met with vitriol in' as he worded it, I'm sure people would have allowed you to remove his comment in the first place. Also, please remember to stay calm in situations such as this. So, just as closure for this, I will replace Rob's remainder of his comment to simply state retired, as he has left Wikipedia. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:That took a long time. Very long time and I think the corruption of Wikipedia has shown itself again. Also see that I am blamed over and over again unlike the others involved. KittenKlub 06:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

:For the record: There are messages on many talk pages, deceptive edit summaries and people who were clearly send in to shut me up. There was no breakdown in communication, too much communication was needed and ignored to finally get a statement removed. That is NOT good faith. And this was the friendly team who could help with disputes and many are clearly corrupt and more interesting in covering for their pal. That's the final summary. KittenKlub 07:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a "buddy" of Geo.. or Rob Church for that matter. I barely know the two. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

KittenKlub, do you realise that the Mediation Cabal is just a term for an informal method to resolve problems? It is not an official Wikipedia policy or group. Mediators are not official mediators, they're not elected, they're not always even on the "list of mediators" (that list just provides an extra method to contact mediators), and no mediator is above any other user. In fact mediators of the "cabal" can't even provide rulings on cases, they are just third parties to keep the discussion cool, civil and on track! It's more of a noticeboard where people can ask for help to resolve problems really. So your problems with some specific users really have nothing to do with the Medcab as a whole. It's like blaming an unmoderated online forum for being corrupt.--Konstable 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the comment is a personal attack.

It simply states why Robchurch no longer is mediating.

If you want to remove it discuss it on the Medcab talk page.

Geo. 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Westlife (talk • contribs)

I just read The Collection that Feels so good certified Tripple Platinum and sold over 1 MILLION in the UK ALONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KH FAN 91 (talk • contribs)

Hi. There actually is a change going on with the releases, that's why the last time I looked, I only added an unverified tag and didn't bother to sort out the mess or revert. The big problems are in the details: if Make Believe is a rename or an additional release, which title will contain the "new" or "old" tracks, and so on. The official sites are in the middle of switching to a different Web designer, so proper sources are currently lacking :( --Cheesemaster 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:I didn't like unsourced data in there so that's why I threw it out. The main problem is that this hoax is no longer a prank but bordering on fraud especially the fan site thing and the similarities with Unicorn. The problem is with the details, because it's a huge pack of lies which they are trying to sell and that we can't assume that all editors are independent, so I'm applying zero tolerance to those pages. I've added Iovine as well, because he is probably the evil genius behind this hoax. KittenKlub 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And they seem to have changed their URL, so 68.64.226.198 corrected the non functioning URL which were already present. KittenKlub 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:Humm... sorry about that. I'll revert my editions pronto. Mea culpa. --Abu Badali 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For one ... I read all the articles I have assessed. When the WP:WPBIO started assessing, I was working in collecting all biographical articles and I was also working with the GA process (which is doing much better thanks to my little interventions). As for the assessments, I read the articles twice, and then rate the article, I read the first list ... then add a rating in excel (done offweb) afterwards, I re-read the articles to give a better assessment.

As for the articles that are not well rated, please state them, make a list on my talk page and I will GLADLY and OBJECTIVELY (to my best) try to give comments and extensive comments for that matter. As for the Louis Jacobs article, please see Talk:Louis Jacobs/Comments for the comments I have added. It greatly help the editor for that matter.

On the matter of assessing articles and giving grades higher than B, I cannot without giving comments or something like that because there is a process that goes behind GAs and FAs (not A-classes but I seldomly give A-class). The process I'm also doing is one where we can collect all the biography articles (I estimate at around 150k that haven't been picked up by the bot (kingbotk)). In doing this it is possible to then re-assess these articles by requests or by manually go through the list.

Please bear with us as this process is long and tedious and takes lots of my time. I hopefully have convinced you that I try to do a neutral/objective job, though it is tough to being a human. Lincher 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:The current system of assessment is completely unfair. Start is NEGATIVE and so is stub. Just look at the definition. Also I am NOT convinced that you read those pages because they were edited 3 to even 5 per minute. There is significant doubt about the validity of your assessments especially since there were many pages who are CLEARLY not stubs and needed their stub removed. KittenKlub 12:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is concerning the B-class rating you gave for the article Harry Redknapp. I disagree with this rating because of the criteria for being in B-class, which is having several (I consider that 3) of these qualities:

1. A particularly useful picture or graphic
2. Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
3. A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
4. Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article.

Now I know that that his coaching career is extremely well-covered, but there isn't a picture, there needs to be more links, and there needs to be more subheaders, especially in early life and playing career.

Also, in your comments, what did you mean when you talked about "a negative rating"? Just wondering. Green caterpillar 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:There was an immense discussion about that already. The current definition of Start and Stub is negative. If that definition remains negative, it is an unfair grade for a fair page. I prefer to look at pages from what the authors tried to do. His biography is extensive and seems to have been written mainly by a couple of anonymous users. Those users didn't have extensive wiki knowledge, but had extensive knowledge about Harry Redknapp and therefore the information is mostly accurate even though it needs verification.

:It is easy to insist on a picture however it is much harder to find anything which is appropriate. I looked at flickr and images.google.com and there is no picture which can fall into fair use categories, so requiring a picture means that you are hoping that somebody will read the story who has a picture which can qualify as fair use and is willing to upload it. So the chances of getting a picture are limited especially if the main authors are anonymous users.

:The same with links and sections. If you want to give a negative rating (because Start has a negative definition) for minor issues on a page where the main authors have little or no knowledge about Wikipedia, then it's unfair rating. That's why the current rating system is flawed, because it was designed by A article writers who wanted three ratings for high quality articles but did not distinguish for fair and reasonable pages which are in the capabilities of the average author. Just like in school the main ratings are B, B-, C+, C, C- or 8, 7 1/2, 7, 7-, 6 1/2, 6+, 6, 6- and 5 1/2 thus giving lots of room and distinction for passing grades. If Start is defined as "useless ... for most" it is a negative rating and thus Start should be avoided unless mandated.

:There are over 100,000 biographies and the fast majority is written by people with little or moderate knowledge about Wikipedia and will not be high quality and do not need to be high quality since the subject is of interest to a small group. A lot of pages will be of fair or reasonable quality. There is no longer a counter on the pages (there are wikis who do show that), because if there was it would show 10-20 visits a day even though the Wikipedia page is the #1 result on google. KittenKlub 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

::First of all, I am not insisting on a picture. It is simply part of criteria.

::Also, I think that the rating system (even the start and stub ratings) is not supposed to show what the authors tried to do. If one wants to show this, he/she can say it in rating comments. The rating system is and should be used to show how the article can be improved. Also I know that in the discussion you talked about some people using automatic tools and, yes, I agree that's wrong for the purpose above.

::However, the rating system appears to have worked well for a significant amount of time, and since there is no other, we might as well follow its criteria until a new one comes along. Green caterpillar 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::No, that's not a fair way to do it. If the authors clearly tried their best and if the overall attempt is reasonable then a fair rating is in order. The problem is that the middle category is limited to just a B-Class and that the Start rating is not defined as a fair rating. Also the name is wrong because Harry Redknapp is not a starting biography, because the contents are coimplete, so what is needed is to convert it to a slightly higher level, but contentwise the page is more or less complete already. KittenKlub 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The whole point is that an attempt is started to rate all pages. I guess that maybe 100,000 will end up being, but at least do it fiar. Currently maybe 10,000 are rated so there is a chance to do it correctly, but 80,000 negative rating is useless. Also because it will not increase the quality of the pages because if it everything is negative then nobody is going to take seriously and you end up with the Cleanup and Stub tags which have little or no effect on the quality of the pages, because they are used far too often and stay on pages for far too long. KittenKlub 20:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! :) Thank you for your message. I do know Terry yes.. I setup his Wikipedia page for him and he just lets me know what he wants me to put on there.

His record company use his Wikipedia page as a good reference for him so that's nice to know. :)

I hope all is in order with the page? ^_^

:The page looks fine. KittenKlub 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for creating complete articles on the first posting. Makes NPP a lot easier.

Mkdw 08:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my comment about her swearing at a fan? It's evidence of her behavior.TannimTannimTannim 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:The comment is completely irrelevant and uncalled for. Please read WP:NPOV. KittenKlub 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not uncalled for. It was stated in AP reports.

:You couldn't provide a link. KittenKlub 06:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not matter. It's true and reflects her presonality205.188.116.135 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:It makes it unverifiable slander. It is also totally irrelevant because one remark which somebody makes is not representative of the person. KittenKlub 20:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No it reflects that she is a hateful person.Tannim 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

:A hateful person is somebody using sock puppets to slander a person. That's a hateful person. KittenKlub 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It will be much better to seperate them (Like The Spice girls and Sugababes etc) because:

• we need to add charts.
• we need to add more information about chart performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KH FAN 91 (talk • contribs)

:It was put on one page because there were complaints on Kelis about making too many single pages which little or no information, and we have the same problem with Atomic Kiten, because there is hardly any information about many of the early singles. So this way we have a full page with all the information including lesser relevant singles. And you have your discography where the overall charts are listed and it can also be listed at the singles.

:Remember that most charts are not that important for most readers and most charts are very hard to validate and the album performance charts were already removed because they contained errors and it is extremely difficult to check any entry outside of the Top 75. So the peak position at UK, NL, DE, CH, US is what can be checked online and the others are not verifiable and often wrong. KittenKlub 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, Hi!, "Silver Shadow" by All Saints peaked #3 UK. I've read it in a UK-Music-web-page. Please, don't delete things that are true! Thank U!

Hi! "Silver Shadow" by All Saints 1975 has peaked to the Number 3 in the UK Singles Charts. I have read this info in a UK-Music Web Page. So, don't delete true information. Thank You very Much! Bye!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.117.250 (talk • contribs)

:Please check everyhit or zobbel.de. It is not listed, so the web page is wrong. None of the early releases ever charted which was the main reason why they All Saints 1.9.7.5 was disbanded. KittenKlub 10:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Policide is i.m.o., POV beyond repair. Please come and let your opinion be heard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)

:Please don't do this. I don't like Vote stacking. Especially if it is an article I have nothing to do with and which I know nothing about. It is normal and good habit to inform somebody if it is an article which he/she is either primary or the main author, however otherwise do not inform them, because it leads to AfD which are tainted and unfair. KittenKlub 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Normally I don't do this, but the issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam like in this case] is bad faith editors creating articles for POV reasons. E.g. suppose that there exists some name for an artist using his audience to make political statements. Imagine Tannim creating an new article on that topic but framing it almost entirely around Barbra Streisand. Now I wouldn't normally give a damn about POV disputes and wouldn't like to be informed about an AFD on such articles unless the POV is a wider issue like in this case. Count Iblis 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign all your posts on talk pages, including user warning templates. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:No I do not sign page on blatent vandalism. That is a good rule from the Dutch wikipedia and prevents unwanted retaliation. KittenKlub 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Here users are expected to sign posts on talk pages, including vandalism warnings. It may prevent unwanted retaliation, but it also prevents right of reply if you make a mistake. If you wish to change this practice, try starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages, and in the meantime, please adhere to the practices of this Wikipedia. The Wikipedias operate independently of each other and what the Dutch Wikipedia does isn't really relevant. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:::There is still something like bad policy which you should not follow and this is an example. If people commit blatent vandalism then you should not make it too easy on them, because they don't show Good Faith. Besides it's a guideline and I choose to ignore it. KittenKlub 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for explaining the translation I indeed didn't know how to translate. BTW does this translation affect the licensing of the images? C mon 09:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your warm welcome and the nice compliment. Your kindness is appreciated. I do have a quick question for you. I recently did quite a bit of work on the Madelyn Pugh article, which is categorized as a "stub". I was thinking about removing the "stub tag" but wasn't really sure A) if a regular user can do that and B)what is the criteria for "stub status"? Would you mind taking a look at this for me and letting me know? I do plan on doing more work on the article when I get a chance. Thanks! Cleo123 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:Basically you can delete stub tags and personally I'd delete them as quickly as possilbe and often don't put any tags on my new articles. The reason is that stubs / cleanup tags (NPOV tags are different since they indicate a genuine problem), etc. hardly make any difference towards editing behaviour. Stub is just for small articles with 3-4 facts and if it goes beyond that then it doesn't require it. My personal philosophy is not to put any tags on pages unless it is really a mess or really short. KittenKlub 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help with this! Cleo123 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Look - I'm a real newbie on Wikipedia.

Basically, the second section of the Human League writeup refers to an earlier band-member who has not been mentioned before. How do I flag this for other wikipedians' attention, or otherwise highlight it as a point that needs addressing?

In other words, if I spot something I can't immediately fix, how do I flag it for attention?

I can manage grammar, spelling or other alterations. I don't know how to flag stuff. HELP!

-- Later --

In fact, I'm from www.everything2.com where I'm an editor. Here is different, and quite difficult. Do you have a document that helps people from e2 onto wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwiz (talk • contribs)

:There is no such thing as flagging for attention on Wikipedia. You can try to talk about it on the Talk page of Human League (Talk:Human League) and ask your question there. I know nothing about everything2.com. KittenKlub 08:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your message, and your help. Yes I'm one of the Oldest solid harmonie fans. I was a huge fan of them when i was a teenager, especially elisa. I was practically in love with her. Even though i have matured now and laugh at my self for listening to Solid harmonie, i believe i will always be interested in them because of the past, the memories.

Yeah, im facing some problems using Wikipedia since im a new user. Many of the codes here are different from origilan html coding. i guess it'll take some time getting used to it. I strongly appriciate your help and I'd like it if you checked Melissa Graham, Elisa, and Beki pages again to make them better.

Can you tell me what should i do about some of the images that i have uploaded. The problem is i acquired them some 5-6 years ago from different fan sites, and almost none of them exists today on the internet. Can you help me fix those pictures otherwise they will be deleted in 7 days. Thanks.

Ridoy2k

:I think that you are doing great. It requires some touch ups and some compliance to ze rules (scream very loud now), but you've been doing great upto now. I'll be reviewing them a bit, okay.

:Images are very difficult around here. Basically the image policy is very strict and leads to much confusion because it is totally unclear. If you don't know the source it'll be deleted anyhow, and even if you know the source it should fall into one of the fair use categories.

:Basically try to stick to cover art or screen captures (just look at the pages I've created, they do not have perfect images either and mainly use cover art. If you have photographs of the girls which you took yourself it'll be the best alternative (See Mariama Goodman which is a picture taken by a fan during her concert. Otherwise try to stick to cover art or screen captures. KittenKlub 11:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The single was relased for downloads for this whole week. The chart is currently is progress and All Saints Rock Steady made it into the charts at #11, on downloads alone. If you listen to the charts at about 6:40 or just before when they read through the whole chart you will hear it then, and it is official. Peterwill 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:Then it will be published at 20:00 exactly on BBC Radio 1, however that is an official chart position. If you do not have an URL - and you didn't have an URL - then it's just another unverifiable piece of information. KittenKlub 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't read out unofficial information on the official charts would they? Plus you said that it wouldn't be in the charts until next wekk, however its in this week, so therefore even if it 'wasn't' official when I added it, its still in the charts at the position I said, so therefore it need not be removed in the first place, just have a source added afterwords.Peterwill 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:You need to supply verified data. Read WP:V. If it is not verifiable, it can be removed. It's about reliability.

Moved to Talk:Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In

We are discussing this and that gives you no right to keep removing for wrong reasons. KittenKlub 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:You seem to be the one "edit-warring", since you added irrelevant material to article pages, and are insisting that it remain there. Please don't edit my user talk page if you don't have anything more worthwhile to say... AnonMoos 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also refrain from shouting and using capitals and colours! It is not the way to communicate!KittenKlub 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:I asked you refrain from using colours, capitals and implied insults by misspelling the name of a band. By reinserting colours and yet again intentionally misspelling it, you will now be ignored. Please ask for a second opinion if you want to continue the matter, because this is not a way to talk. KittenKlub 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'll request a third opinion, because this is not a normal discussion. KittenKlub 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I was able to resolve the issue there to everyone's satisfaction. Unless there is a dispute over the authenticity of the photo that was published (ie., faked) that I am unaware of, I think it is legitimate to give it a minor factual and neutral mention. I let the other editor know that any links to photos floating around the net are probably violating someone's copyright, and would not be appropriate to include. The photos I saw were not sexually suggestive, and pretty innocent actually. I don't think that Katona has anything to be ashamed of. From what I gather, there was some sort of legal wrangling going on over the photo that was published. Apparently, the Sport had promised to publish more the next week, but never did. If there is any sourcable material about that like reliable news articles, that could be included too. Crockspot 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well it's basically like it was before. However his specific descriptions and insisting to insert "pornography" makes it clear that the other person has no respect for women whatsoever and is not a genuine contributor either. I don't want this stuff on my talk page either. It's hard enough contributing to Wikipedia (I'm seriously considering leaving again, because this is not a flawed system, it's truly a failed system)

:Just for the record, I'm not maintaining her page, because I like her, but because she came with the pack and it seems that if I don't delete crap from her page then nobody will and it is still the top page on google for her. Luckily her fame is such that it's just 2/3 times a month, but the "additions" are almost always slander time and time again. It's pretty typical of the world we live in. The pictures are nothing to be ashamed off, however I don't want degrading talk about a woman's genitalia on pages and this guy thinks that it is normal to treat woman like meat. KittenKlub 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, don't give up. I spend most of my time reverting slander. It sucks, but if we don't do it, it might not get done. I'll leave the article on my watchlist and keep an eye out. Crockspot 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)