User talk:Misscandy

Welcome!

Hello, Misscandy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! deeptrivia (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's perky and everyone's uptight

Hey, Candy!

I thought that I may as well write my response to you here, because firstly, it's sort of out of place on the main page and secondly, it's easier to see when one has been contacted with this. Yes, I wrote MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack, and indeed a whole bunch of other Beck articles, mostly because I was despondent about how the Pussy Cat Dolls or Mariah Carey, or I don't know, some other anti-feminist slease, get huge articles despite their lyrical inanity and musical derivativeness, whereas there's Beck with stubs for songs that could inspire hours of analysis... so I started what has been, lamentably, mostly a one-person attempt to build some Beck pages that are more than two-line explanations of when it was released and what score it got in the Top 40. MTV is quite an early article (my third on Beck, after writing something huge about the Banjo Story, which got deleted, and then replaced with something 1/10th the size. Fun!) and thus quite bad example of what I've been doing... the latest that I wrote was Devils Haircut.

Anyhow, (sorry about that, I have rather the neurotic habit of wittering on.) you are totally right that the article on MMMWTSC (I hate acronyms, but there goes) is wrongly written. It's a long time ago, but I am quite sure that I created the page with the correct title, and I think that it was moved to 'wanna' by someone... after all, if you note, the correct spelling is given on the first line of the article. Anyhow, it would make perfect sense to move the article to its proper name; I or you can do it, I don't mind. Anyone who would object is slightly off their orbit, but I doubt that anyone would really notice.

Sorry about that epistle. My best wishes,

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loser

...was released for airplay in late 93, but the physical release on CD (this being WAY before digital releases) was on January 18, 1994, therefore, making it a 1994 song. I have added the source. BGC (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, gotcha. See my comment on your user page. However, the Loser record article says it was recorded in '93. I am sure it was '91 or '92. I will check further (unless you do it first). Candy (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan and Blake

I'll try and keep an eye on them. It's not vandalism, at least not all of it, but some of it is unsourced. Thanks for letting me know! Redrocket (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle North

I did find a YouTube video of her. I'd have to watch the whole thing, but the caption says she's on film supporting Scientology. Yet I don't know the standard regarding YouTube videos. It's a self-uploading site, so it's probably considered self-published, but it's on film so.... Longchenpa (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientologists

I would rather keep this discussion centralized to the article's talk page. However, the recent Request for Comment on the matter was quite clear. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for Comment on List of Scientologists was not clear on the reliability of Leggett's article; the RFC addressed the reliability of CoS publications, but as far as I can tell it didn't establish that all third-party sources are reliable. Nowhere in that discussion was the reliability of Leggett's article even mentioned. It had been mentioned earlier, before the RFC, and in fact, someone else suggested that perhaps I should delete Courtney Love. But it wasn't discussed beyond that, because the question at hand was whether we could cite CoS publications.

I contacted you because I really am interested in knowing what the issue is here. There is nothing besides the Leggett mention that supports Courtney Love being a Scientologist. On the other hand, there is evidence that supports her not being one (for instance, the fact that she's spent time in non-Scientology rehab). Since you are the one who keeps reinstating her, it seems fair to ask you what your reasoning is. Candy (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edits to Loser_(Beck_song)

Thanks :) --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source at List of Scientologists

Not sure Daily Mail is the best source to use there for WP:RS. Best to find an WP:RS source, instead. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I figured it was okay because they were quoting something she said on a television show (rather than reporting gossip). But maybe someone more reliable reported it. I'll look around. Candy (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I noticed you were editing the Beck page. He's my favorite. You like him too? If you could try to to help me find some more directors for the music video table I made on the Beck discography page, I would appreciate it. It was really hard to make, since I just signed up yesterday and I'm not an expert. And the New Pollution page is kind of stubbish. GrantyO

Hi. Yeah, I am a Beck fan. I edit his page, and related pages, a lot. One thing I am not very good at is the template stuff, though. So I don't know how to get everything to look exactly right all the time. It took me forever to figure out how to add the directors I added. I'll try to fill in the missing ones if I can...they are not as easy to check as the ones I already filled in. Candy 01:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

hmm...

I wish there was a way to put on the music video table that all of the Version 1 The Information music videos were directed by Beck and his family... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks! and is there a way to, like, add you as my friend or something? And how did you know the directors for those videos? I've been looking for them. And how do you get userboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 04:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually Googled the videos and their directors. (I was pretty sure about Ross Harris and Jason Lee, but I didn't trust my memory so I Googled to make sure, then looked for others.) I'm afraid I don't know anything about whether Wikipedia has friending or about userboxes. I just edit entries! Candy 09:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to this website...http://www.rossangeles.net/videos.html If you scroll down, you will see Beck "Beercan" co directed w/Steve Hanft —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Well, okay then. I just found a reference to it somewhere as having been directed by Ross Harris. I will go try to put it back. Hopefully I will not screw up the table. Candy 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nausea, Cellphone's Dead v.1

Like I was saying before, I don;t know how to put that all of the Version 1 Information videos were directed by Beck & his family. Otherwise, Nausea & Cellphone's Dead had different videos besides the ones made on The Information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I see what you're saying. I don't know how much luck I'll have, but I'll try to find out more about that. Candy 06:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

&

What's the big deal about ampersands & Oxford commas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantyO (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "big deal"? In narrative writing (e.g., books and newspapers), ampersands are not used in place of "and." It's just a matter of standard writing style. For Oxford commas, Wiki's stance is neither for nor against, but it does say, in its editing guidelines, that editors should be consistent within an article. Candy (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry.

Beck

The reason is because it's a chart from a specific week, so you can't verify whether or not the song actually placed higher after that specific week. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beck and Rain

RE: Beck edit 1990. All the information is correct and factual. We were all friends back then, back when Beck and my sister were a couple. Their relationship ended in late 1991, so there are some discrepancies with your facts. I am simply trying to correct them. I also did an interview with Beck when he came to Seattle Wa in 1994 (never released) where he stated to me that the majority of the interviews he had done up to that point were mostly ficticious, wherein the authors would add quotes and misinformation to Beck's stories for whatever reason. You can verify what I am telling you with Giovanni Ribisi/ Beck.^[1]Infinifilm (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinifilm (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Really, I am not disputing anything you said. I was just curious about the "punk-poet scene" thing, because I imagined the scene was probably created by more than two people (like, maybe, also by Channing?). But if it was created by just Beck and Rain, your wording is fine. Candy (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I see your change from "scene" to "fanzine" now. That clears it all up! Thanks. Candy (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beck sources

Hey there! I tend to, when revising an article, reuse the same reftags, and simply forgot to delete the URL of a Rolling Stone article. The LA Times article is now correctly linked. Thanks for notifying me! Thardin12 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. I was afraid it was a bigger issue than that. I am not great with citations--every time I do one, I have to copy the template and pick my way through it. :/ It looks like you did some good work on the article. I'm going to be going over it more closely in the next few days. Candy (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's fine... I'm not sure whether you're to leave a response on another user's talk page or not either. Wikipedia is confusing. Citations are messy and confusing at first, I know. That's good to hear about the Beck article! I just stumbled upon the Beck article one night and decided to do what I do best - revamp the whole thing :P Thardin12 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Misscandy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Misscandy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Personal account of Beck from 1986 to 1994- Ezra Zach Spurlock

[1] Personal account of Beck from 1986 to 1994- Ezra Zach Spurlock

[1]