User talk:Alankc/Archive 1

Discography

your edits to the Kelly Clarkson discography are not very wise... when a song is released as a single with a double a side song that does not mean that the b side song will be the same peak position as the a side, billboard changed the rules to that a long time ago, usually discographies are made to display charted albums and charted songs and certifications, therefore i will change the name of singles to charted songs, do not remove any material, another thing is that before your love never entered the UWC or any billboard chart y? cause otherwise it would appear in the statistics list in the UWC site or its peaks would list in billboard or in allmusic, take this as a warning, I've changed many discographies in the past, in a good way, cleaning them up and always trying to look for sources to leave material but if i cant find them then i removed them. i have previously worked on the Madonna discography, and I'm resposible for giving huge appreciated clean ups to the RBD discography, Cher discography, Nelly Furtado discography and Anastacia discography. so i have experience, if u keep acting imature i will keep reverting i have all the time in the world Rsf7589 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I Ever Wanted

Yep ... that's what I wanted to do. Thanks for fixing my error. Cheers, Amalthea 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Comments

Please don't forget to sign your name on talk pages after commenting on them using ~~~~. Thank you! DreamHaze (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson discography

Do not remove peaks because Bubbling Under Hot 100 peaks are listed like that per this Wikipedia discussion Wikipedia talk:Record charts/archive3#Hot 100/Bubbling Under. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would still use #118 notation instead using a separate column. Everybody knows that Bubbling under Hot 100 is a extension of Hot 100, so we need to show some relationship between them. Langdon (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Also, I don't think Bubbling under is not notable. If it is not notable, why does Billboard release the chart anyway? Langdon (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)i7114080[reply]

Hello Sir

I stumbled upon your site and noticed you are a consultant (which means you travel a lot right?). I love to travel and plan on majoring in Computer Science here at Florida Sate. Being a professional, do you have any recommendations? And sorry for posting such a random question. --DarkKunai (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson biography

Kelly is of Greek and Irish descent. She even mentions that in an interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18UsuIZ8hI at 1:38 (I know that YouTube isn't a suitable source) . --Uuuuuno (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my "Vandalism

I saw someone put "Already Gone" as the next single so all I did was change the next single indicator from "Cry" to "Already Gone". I did not intentionally vandalize the article, I fixed the article based on what I presume, is someone else's errors.

Adam 94 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

       Well, I have proof "Already Gone" could be the next single.

http://hiphop-prophet.blogspot.com/2009/04/blah-kelly-clarkson-to-release-already.html So I did not intentionally vandalize the wikipedia page and I did have a source. So therefore my changing the indicator to "Already Gone" was NOT vandalism.

As stated above, I said I changed it from "Cry" to "Already Gone". And either way, I did not supply the wikipedia page with said source. I used the source someone ELSE provided to update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam 94 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

		The Original Barnstar
		For your good work on Kelly Clarkson and any articles relating to her. Keep it up. Acalamari 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your barnstar to me. :) Acalamari 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson label

Your reasoning is irrelevant. RCA records exists in the US and in the UK as a standalone company. Every single one of their artists is released by Sony Music international companies outside of the US and UK. Going with your logic, that would mean that 1/4 of the world's artists would have "sony music" in their infoboxes, since sony music is one of the big four record companies and because almost all of their US artists are distributed in other countries through their international companies. Evidently this is not how it is done on wikipedia. Check out all the major RCA records artists on wiki, or any other sony artist under Columbia, Epic, Jive etc... all their stuff is released by "sony music" international companies all across the world! This is the main reason why these non US and UK offices exist in the first place- to promote and distribute US, UK and other global artists from all the multiple sony labels that exist in these large/diverse markets (while developing their own "local" repertoire).

A market such as italy, for example, is not large/diverse enough to justify an "rca records italy" together with "columbia records italy" and all the other labels, rather a "sony music italy" exists to pool together any sony label artist coming from the US. Foreign RCA releases will still have the RCA brand on them, even if they comes from a company such as "sony music italy".

Also notice how RCA is her record label, and Sony Music is the record company. Notice how the infobox says label and not company- this is another argument for the distinction made on wiki.

Please do not revert again unless you can provide specific good article wikipedia infobox examples that refute this convention and logic. Imperatore (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously only sony exists in those markets you mentioned. Obviously you didn't get a thing I said but that's OK- I have all the time in the world to revert your edits. Imperatore (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can I poke in? It is not acceptable to continue edit warring, either of you. Please continue to talk to each other. --Izno (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Style (WP:Crystal)

Excuse me but i find your editing style rather brash and not needed although i do believe it was in WP:good faith. If you would have taken the time to look at the sourced in Elope (album)'s recorded tracks section you would have seen that each has been recorded as a track for the album and each is confirmed. Look at the history page of any article about an music album and im am 99% sure that you will find a list of recorded tracks with sources before the actual tracklisting was published. There is nothing wrong with sourced information like this. I admit if the article listed them as "Tracklisting" this would count under WP:crystal.

Please in future discuss your edits before making drastic changes such as blanking (deleting a whole section) wikipedia articles. Be careful of your style of editing as some editors might have problems with your style and could result in you being reported for disruptive editing or tendentious editing which carries serious penalities and could result in bans from editing. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Barely Legal (TV series)

Hello Alankc, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Barely Legal (TV series) - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to nominate at WP:GAN it will be reviewed in due course. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hey there, Alankc, I've just granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Remember though, that unlike Twinkle, rollback only leaves one edit summary, and the tool really should be used to revert vandalism, while good-faith edits will need to be reverted with an explanation, rather than with rollback. I should also mention that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with can get the tool removed, and some admins don't even warn editors who do that. For practice, you may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. This all said, have fun with your new tool, and good luck. Thanks! Acalamari 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I'm sure you'll use the tool well.

Regarding Kelly Clarkson herself, I think the first thing to do would be to remove anything from her article that is hard to source but also trivial and not really worth mentioning if it can't be sourced that easily. I admit I haven't read through the article much recently (which I should do, due to her songs being back on the charts again and there's high activity on her page), so I'll have to do that soon. As for the bad sources you mentioned, as far as I'm aware, there is no ban on YouTube links, but if you use them, you'll have to make sure that the video on the site is not a copyright violation (note I have not done this before). With blogs, it may be worth reading them in case they link to anything useful, which they sometimes do, but I'd be careful with them, for as you said, blogs shouldn't be used as sources.

As for knowing Kelly herself, it's a shame anything you've spoken to her about personally can't be used: unfortunately, it counts as "original research" unless it's mentioned elsewhere. Ah well. Acalamari 19:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan.
This was a misuse of vandalism. As Acalamari said, use it only to revert blatantly unconstructive edits. The revert would have required an edit summary explaining it, even if it's just "lacks reliable sources". Small wonder that the user added it back.
As would have this undo, incidentally. An attempt at communication might have prevent the re-addition.
Regards, Amalthea 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clarkson - GA

Hi Alan. You don't remember me, but I remember you from KCKellyville. Because I do some editing there I got the GA notice too. I'll do what I can but right now I'm working on cleaning up the references on the Clay Aiken article. Take a look at the lead paragraph there. We worked on fixing that one last year. GA leads are supposed to be a synopsis of the entire article. Can you work in Kelly's tours and her stints with Reba, along with her country roots. Take a look too at the requirements for GA and the WP:MoS. I'll do what I can to help. Maria202 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 months most web pages are archived. The WP:CHECKLINKS and WP:DEADREF address dead links and what to do. I've been using Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/) to fix the dead links on Clay's page. I've also had to turn one link into a text reference because it wasn't archived. Just paste the url into the box and if the article was archived it will come up with the archived link. Replace the dead link with the archived link. You can check the references on Clay's article to see how it's been done there.

While we're on the subject of references, the ones on Kelly's article are a mess. There is no consistancy to them. It's a chore but it needs to be fixed. Maria202 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think you'd mind if I standardized the reference link so I did. Less work down the road. Maria202 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review started. I addressed 2 of the items listed on Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA2. Maria202 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Already Gone Single Cover.jpg

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on File:Already Gone Single Cover.jpg. The reason I declined it is because there was no previous image by this name, and no indication where the previously deleted image was. Feel free to renew the request if you can give the name of the previously deleted image, or the discussion where it was decided to delete it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that CSD G4 relates solely to pages or files that have been deleted as a result of a discussion, not previously speedy deleted files. CSD candidates are judged on their own merits. I have added {{orfud}} so it will be deleted in seven days time. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

Please read WP:TWITTER. Twitter, YouTube, et al, are allowed provided they are from someone immediately related to the subject. Joseph Kahn is. Perez Hilton, as a "journalist", is. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was also mentioned in a news article somewhere, which is also a RS, so I'll find it and add it back in. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are fine if they come from someone directly affiliated with the subject. That has always been the case. It doesn't matter if it's in a book they've had published, their official website, an interview in a newspaper, or on a blog. Yes, guidelines say to try to avoid them as much as possible, but it isn't always possible. Even news articles, and anything else published on the internet, for that matter, can be deleted just as easily as Tweets, so that means nothing. There is a news article I read yesterday that quoted from his Twitter page.. I'm trying to go through my history and find it, but I've had no luck so far. Matthewedwards : Chat 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun...

...and good luck. 68.73.215.30 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Clakrson VH1 Divas

You liar. I looked through the article and a "simular" similiar picture was not found nor was it from the same event. This picture I added should be Kelly Clarkson's default picture because it is the most recent picture of her. I am adding it back. If you have a problem with the picture, discuss it on the talk page. --Homezfoo (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH MY GOD!

You dumb poopie head! That is a different event! Is that what you're talking about?

Kelly Clarkson at the Women's World Award 2009 (Wiener Stadthalle, Vienna, Austria). ??

That's a different EVENT!!! Oh my flipping goodness! >:O

The one i added was from 2009 VH1 DIVAS! Again i am adding it back. Its not the same event. --Homezfoo (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: You know what? Nevermind. I have more important things to do. Do what you please. Poopie head. >:[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homezfoo (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha

Alrighty friend. ;) But you do see that the kelly clarkson pics were not the same right? If you didn't like the picture that's all you had to say. :\ --Homezfoo (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this, WP:BLANKING: Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.
So yes, if they want, they can remove the section.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I hate to gloat but... Ha! ^_^ --Homezfoo (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloat? There's nothing to gloat about, Homezfoo, and you are certainly on wafer-thin ice her. As I've told you before, focus your energy on content please, and attempt to resolve disputes in a collaborative and constructive manner in the future. Amalthea 10:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

waTer-thin ice? I haven't really said or done much on wikipedia except call this person a poopie head (and a few edits misunderstood as vandalism and a couple of real vandalism here and there and that's it) but I guess I'll think twice before I ever call someone a poopie head or any other silly 2nd grade bully playground names again on wikipedia since i guess they're a bit sensitive about that. Oh God, Lord forbid that I ever get blocked from wikipedia for calling someone a mr. meanie pickle face next time. Oh the horror! I guess that's a personal attack here and you will suffer the consequences!

Anyways, I apologize to Alankc but I'm a bit short-tempered and I don't like people who don't notice or admit to their own crap. :)
And by not apologizing or replying back to me just shows the kind of person you seem to look like to me Alankc. :) But its just Wikipedia, folks. So chill. But I like I said I'm a bit short-tempered with anyone's silly actions. :)

And as you can see Alankc:

The pictures are NOT the same. :)

If you didn't like the picture I put up because it was a poor quality picture or whatever then that's all you had to say and I probably would've agreed because I just realized that. :D

So I guess what I learned here today is don't call anyone a poopie head ever again or get spanked with the block action.

And I guess what we ALL learned here today is, think twice before you say or do something. If you do, then no silly crap like this has to ever happen again! Hooraaaay!

Ice cream cones and party hats for everybody! :D

Yummy!

Now lets all be best friends foreveeeeeeeeeer! =D

--Homezfoo (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woooow

Singer? You built your own computer? Web stuff? Wooooooooow. Impressive Alankc. :) I like folk and rock music too! And you play an intrument TOO? Oh my god!!!!!!!! Wooooooooooooooooooooow. Niiiiiiiiiice.... B-)

Radio talk show host as well??? Holy smoking banana cream pies! What else you do? Are you superman too? OH MY GOD! Wooooooow. B-)

You get cool points from me because of all THIS. B-)
But not the Kelly Clarkson stuff... ¬_¬
--Homezfoo (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "I'm gonna harass you"

So to the Administrators or people reading this, please read carefully what I wrote on his talk page. He said that I wrote that I am only here to harass him or something like that. I called him a poopie head because he was wrong about the pictures being the same. So am I the victim here or am I wrong and do I really deserve to be blocked? :\ If I do, then so be it. Block me. If I don't, then please do not cause I didn't come on Wikipedia to "personally attack" anyone. And i removed the kelly clarkson picture he put back because I thought he was a liar and purposely did removed the picture because he didn't like it, as I said above on his talk page.

If he didn't like it, he should've told me because it was another editor who removed and informed me on the edit summary box that the pic was low quality so I understood. But I thought that wikipedia always wanted the most recent picture of the person's article, even if it were low quality. :\ So examine this situation carefully who ever is reading this and I hope you fairly see my point of view. :\

"You even admit on my talk page you've been coming on here lately for the purpose of harassing me." - Alan KC on my talk page.

What in the world???? Oh my god I NEVER EVEEEEEEER said that so SOMEBODY please read carefully what I have ever written to him before blocking me for personal attacks. :\

--Homezfoo (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Per WP:HARASS, if the abovementioned editor ever comes to your discussion page again to taunt you or harass you, you have every right to delete his comments and ignore him. And if he carries on with his rheotic, it is also your right to bring him up to this page for sanction purposes by other uninvolved editors/administrators. Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't really worth my time, he's been argueing with other edittors/admins over the whole thing, not me. It jsut became annoying so I made a report to let others know about him, of course, all after he made such a big deal over nothing. The only comments i've made on his page was the primary warning about his 'personal attack', which i simply called bad behavior, then a notification that he was reported (with a little nice advice), then a standard warning aboutpersonal attacks via the tools built into firefox. everything else was other people argueing with this 'kid', and the ';kid' himself blabbering about things I haven't even read as I don't speak gibberish. That about explains it all from my end.:) Alankc (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it was, WP:WQA is the first step towards dispute resolution and when that doesn't work, bring it further up to WP:ANI. If the kids here won't behave themselves then the administrators will make them behave, otherwise the well-being of Wikipedia stands to be severely disrupted by such unruly individuals and their personal behaviour. BTW, before you reply to others again please read the notes they left for you to read, as it is on mine. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]