User talk:ScottMHoward/Archive 2

Amy Lee

Hey, this is about the Evanescence edit you undid. I am afraid I don't understand why you undid it. You sent me a message proclaiming it wasn't 'constructive' however I don't know why this was since it seemed like a perfectly reasonable and helpful edit giving more information about an important section of information about Lee which I felt the page was lacking.--Leinelikes2smile (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to this edit that was reverted by user Ethan1994. As you can see by their edit summary, YouTube did not exist in 2003 (it was founded in 2005 and became popular only in 2006), which is only a portion of the false information you posted with your edit. Even if you ignore the fact that your edit appears, at least to me, to be a complete fabrication, your edit was posted in a BLP, or Biography of a Living Person. Any information posted about a living person must have verifiable sources included with this edit. Otherwise, it is slander and liabilities come into question. You are publishing false information about a living person on a public website, which may spark a lawsuit. Without a valid source to fall back on, it can only be seen as the lies that they are. Thus, an unconstructive edit / vandalism. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

same-time edit

Sorry! I've asked admin to remove orig size and mine. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think you should revert back to your 320x320. That picture has the best quality out of any of them. It's still within the size constraints for copyrighted images, but the wording is much clearer. JPGs are HORRIBLE at processing RED, and even though I tried to convert mine to 100% quality compression, it came out like crap. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Statistics

{{helpme}}I'm wondering if any user knows of any Wikipedia policy that has information about detailed statistics within articles. For example, a popular Youtube user, Lindsey Stirling, has a couple hundred million video views and over a million subscribers, and her article displays this fact. However, it's displayed in a way that causes random users to feel the need to update the number at every opportunity (ex. from 219 million to 220 million, after each milestone). I'm hoping there's some type of policy on the Wiki that might say something along the lines of keeping big numbers general, as if to only display a number like that as "over 200 million". Or is this just one of those things that will forever be an "issue"? It seems ridiculous to continue updating an article weekly just to make sure those numbers are accurate when it really doesn't matter if it's only a 0.5% increase. Ideas? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, Well, unfortunately there is no policy that can stop them from doing that. However, I don't see this as being an "issue"; making these minor edits do make the article more accurate, even if the accuracy increase is slight. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand the article can be more accurate with these numbers but to me, it seems tedious and not useful (since it's not really notable). "This is youtube user has millions of views" vs "This youtube user has 220,156,158 views" even seems easier to read for the casual user. I wasn't really looking for a policy to prohibit it, just a Manual of Style type thing to help curb the amount of "useless" edits made just to keep the numbers exact ("over 200 million", while an extraordinary feat should is still sufficient and accurate, in my eyes).

But I guess this will indeed forever be an "issue" (at least in my eyes). I see the same thing with musical album sales, etc. People seem to feel the need to have exact figures over a "notable amount", and that just irks me slightly. It's not a big deal, I was just curious. Thanks :) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne Discography

Hi, I've seen you also cooperate on Avril Lavigne Discography page. I think the page must be semi-protected. What do you think about? --Watquaza (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it qualifies at this point. The bulk of the recent edits were only done by a single IP-editor, so if there's really much of an issue, that single user could be blocked. Any other possible poor editing was the result of other registered users, where a protection would do nothing. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should report those Ips then. --Watquaza (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure this IP is doing anything wrong. From what it looks like, he's going through and CORRECTLY changing the country names to the actual names of the charts (AUS → ARIA) and verifying all the info and if there isn't any certification on the source provided, he's tossing out the cert. That's what it appears. I'd have to go and check each of the references he's deleted, but from what I can see, it is not vandalism at all. Remember to assume good faith in other editors, even if they are IPs. Not all major-edits are vandalism. If you question this editor's reasons for making these major changes, seek discussion on his talk page, or the article's talk page for a more general opinion from all editors.

Again, he appears to be doing more good than harm and I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing at this point without looking into the references that were removed, but if you do, by all means report him. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definately want this article to improve, it was a mess back then, the certifications section just included 5 countries. It clearly didn't reflected the huge performance of Avril's albums. The WW sales didn't even have sources. That's why I get pissed off when people delete with no reason the success of any artist. Thanks for your message. I'm hoping we can keep cooperating with the article of this talented lady :). --Watquaza (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. =D My plan was to just save all the references that were being deleted (they're in an HTML comment in the references section) and at some point go through them all and see if there's any unique information in them that can be re-added to the article. The IP-editor, to me at least, seems to know what they're doing, so I don't usually like to interrupt a construction job in-process. I do, however, go through afterward and tweak all the things I didn't think were right during the overhaul. I'm sure many of those references are garbage now, but I'm also just as sure that some vital information can still be found within some. It's just matter of finding the time to go through them. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 05:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dudee, seriously, this Ip keeps disrupting the Avril Lavigne Discography page over and over and over. It's obvious he/she's not improving it, every edit is for remove sales or change the structure of the page. I beeeg you, please report that Ip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watquaza (talk • contribs) 06:53, May 1, 2013‎ (UTC)

Sorry, somehow the Discography was removed from my watchlist so I haven't seen any of these edits, but the edit history seems clear that there's some "warring" going on, so I've put in a request to have the page protected from IP users, citing it via your request. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on articles undone

Scott, With regard to the Amy Lee article - two of those edits (the unsourced collaborations discography, and the Baldwin manufacturer reference) were subject to immediate deletion under WP:CITE and WP:PROMOTION respectively. As to the comment about flatulence, well, I don't like Amy Lee, and I think little jabs like that are funny. Therefore I am restoring the first two edits and leaving the third undone. The article already contains a note about what should be listed in the discography and adding collaborations, especially an unsourced list, was already vetted on the article talk page. The Baldwin reference, especially since it appears next to a picture of the article subject playing a piano with the manufacturer's name emblazoned on it in six-inch orange letters, is a blatant promotion for said manufacturer. Dkendr (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making little "jabs" completely invalidates any of your edits as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to be a legitimate Wikipedia editor, you need to learn to withhold your immature "jabs" and just stick to the edits that actually help improve the website. Otherwise, it just makes it look like you're having a free-for-all, and makes you look like nothing but a disruptive editor. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne post-grunge?

Avril Lavigne has never and will never be Post-grunge. I think you should look more into the genre before labeling her as such.Post-grunge are bands like Bush, Silverchair and Collective soul that tried to copy the sound of Nirvana and Pearl Jam. I don't hear any of their influence in any of her songs. Also you're edit was a violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states if it's not listed then it should not be added.--Greaymarshess (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not say "you cannot use archived links", it says to only use information specifically from the source, exactly how it is written in the source. An archived source IS a valid source. That's the point of archiving. The internet is ever-changing, so when a source presents itself, it should always be archived. The song was classified as post-grunge and so that is why it is listed.

Whether or not I'm familiar with a particular genre or not is not the point. "you should look more into" and "I don't hear any" are classic examples of WP:OPINION and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. When you get down to the bottom of it, it's a properly sourced citation that lists the song as post-grunge, so there is no reason why it should not be included, regardless of what your opinion about the genre is. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a discussion and I gave you one. The first think in coming to a consensus is talking about "The said" genre in question.You need to say why you think Avril Lavigne is Post-grunge It has nothing to do with WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH or WP:OPINION. But I will tell you this if you keep undo this I will report you to an administrator for edit warring and making nonconstructive edits.--Greaymarshess (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me how to have a discussion. Just because you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean you can reply with threats like that. I am fully aware of the Three revert rule, which is why I'm asking YOU for discussion. The bottom line is that you are removing properly sourced information based on your opinion of whether it's fact or not. And THAT is where the problem is. It doesn't matter if I "think" it's post-grunge or not. It's properly sourced that way, and that's the point of sources and what matters on Wikipedia. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't understand is allmusic has updated their site so "Allmusic highlighted the song as one of the most significative post-grunge songs of all time." Is not relevant info. I don't understand why you think outdated sources are reliable. It has not relevancy to the current article.--Greaymarshess (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the reliable source page "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite PRESENT scholarly consensus when available"--Greaymarshess (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is allmusic any of the following: "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks"? My point still stands: archived sources are still valid sources and you continue to remove this sourced information based on your personal opinion. You were WP:BOLD in removing the info, and it was reverted by two separate people. The next step in the process is discussion without reversion. All you are doing is Edit Warring. Please STOP reverting back to your new version (as I have stopped reverting your new version), and continue to discuss the matter civilly. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has nothing to do with that, but it still applys. I find it funny you tried to warn me about being blocked when you were the one who started edit warring/reverting not me. Last time I checked you couldn't be blocked for posting reliable,Relevant sources.It's hard to come to a consensus when you will not state why you think "So much for my happy ending" is grunge.Why can't you understand that ALLMUSIC UPDATED IT FOR A REASON AND IT'S MORE VALID THEN YOU CACHE LINK CAUSE IT'S AN UPDATE. I'm going by what a Senior editor recently told me who is known for dealing with people like you "I'm sure that if the single is obviously post-grunge, there should be other sources that list it as such aside from allmusic".--Greaymarshess (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) You admit your quoted reasoning has nothing to do with the topic, and yet you say it still applies? Instructions for how to eat an apple can't be applied trying to eat an orange. B) I warned you because you were dangerously close to violating the three-revert-rule, which typically gets an automatic ban. It doesn't say "I'm going to ban you", it just says "be careful". As far as me editwarring, I asked for discussion on the second revert and stopped any editing of any kind. And you continued to revert, and reverted a further time after another user replaced the source. THAT is editwarring. C) You haven't posted any reliable, relevant sources, you've only deleted valid sources. D) My opinion on whether it's post-grunge or not doesn't matter, and that's what I've been trying to explain to you. If you or I think it's not post-grunge, that's our opinion and should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not a valid archived source should be included in an article or not. E) Just because a website updates a list, that doesn't not make a previous list they've made irrelevant. The prose says "allmusic highlighted"... in the past tense. They may not highlight the song now, but it did. And there's a source to prove it was at the time. If you want to compromise by leaving "post-grunge" out of the infobox, but leaving the source in the prose, I'm absolutely in favor of that (I don't like the genre field in the infobox at all anyway), but censorship in favor of user opinion is not the way to go.

It's a valid source regarding the genre of the song and there's no reason it shouldn't be included. The only thing you've cited to give reason to remove it is that your opinion is that it shouldn't be there. You've given no proper examples through wikipedia policies, as I have done. If you can't come up with any reasonable explanation for why it needs to be removed, then there's no use trying to discuss the matter with you any further without getting an administrator's opinion on the topic. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 07:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE Fact you tried to get the page protected only proves that you were wrong. But on to answer your questions (A I never admitted to anything, don't try and put words in my mouth. That's quiet the comprising Yes Apples and Oranges may not be alike but they are both fruit. The same goes with this The source content may not deal with the same subject, but they are both about reliable sources so it would apply to music as well as any other sources. (B I have been on here long enough to Know about the 3RR I don't need you to play Big Brother You worry about yourself ok?C) Are you Kidding me? ALLMUSIC IS MY RELIABLE SOURCE IT DOESN'T LIST POST-GRUNGE SO IT IS NOT POST-GRUNGE, Though your info is also reliable it is not as Valid as mine. (D I know it doesn't matter, it's just when A user insists on keeping a cache link when The other two sources have updated links it just makes you wonder. NOW on to what I have to say. I am ok with Post-grunge being in the infobox as long as there IS a second source to back it up. but if you wanna remove it from the infobox that's fine by me.Also next time don't ask to have the page protected. Cause some admins are known to side with whomever comes crying to them first.--Greaymarshess (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bicker about this. I requested page protection because the quality of the article was being degraded because of an edit war. Keep in mind was requesting it to be frozen WITH YOUR EDIT IN TACT, and that's all I'm going to respond to, the matter appears to be over. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

singles by lindsey stirling

you are wrong about the deleting the 4 songs in lindsey's page the 4 songs are singles you can see it here:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/phantom-opera-medley-single/id549426040
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/assassins-creed-theme-single/id576718264
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/we-found-love-single/id524616604
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/good-feeling-violin-remix/id585150169
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.24.136 (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a "song" and a "single". Every song on iTunes is not a single. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

isn't the name single in the title prove it's a single ??
each one of the 4 songs has it in it's name
please explain why 'zelda medley' is a single and 'we found love' isn't
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.24.136 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Zelda Medley" is available as an individually released single from the official record label website (which dictates what's defined as a single or not--the record label). You can buy ANY song on iTunes. Just because it's labeled as "single", that does not mean it's a Music single as defined by wikipedia. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made Of Stone Single!!!

Made of Stone is a Single! See the second video: http://www.fuse.tv/2012/05/evanescence-talk... Amy told this! The single was released on January... Other official references:

http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/340570762644636
http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/281662988577963
http://www.facebook.com/Evanescence/posts/352596334795132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.95.253 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the radio promo CD: http://evanescence-world.com/?page_id=2805
See also: http://evanescencereference.info/wiki/index.php?title=Made_of_Stone_and_The_Other_Side_singles

--95.246.95.253 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Is the following source not a reliable one?: http://www.mvdbase.com/-VarietyPerson (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be reliable. If you look at the Bio page about the author, the entire website is just run by one French fan. It's a fan website, nothing more. Not notable enough for Wikipedia sourcing. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments

I'm getting so tired of folks battling over such picky things. See Talk:Civil Air Patrol#Capitalization for another example. This is why I've moved more toward Commons in the past year, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been much less active lately for that exact reason. I've only been focusing on major things instead of watching every single edit like I used to. But now I'm nearly ready to just abandon the whole thing because of all the stupid arguing over nothing of any real importance. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

I'm changing those number one singles back because they WERE worldwide #1 singles, which means any single that has gone #1 anywhere in the world can be in that list. I did nothing wrong and I'm changing it back. TheCraziestFun (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The songs you added did not peak at #1 is any of the notable countries worldwide found in Avril Lavigne discography. So you're going to have to add sources to this claim. Otherwise it fails wikipedia's policies of verifiability and possibly original research. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I took it upon myself to check the charts in the individual articles to see where (if anywhere) they did chart at Number 1. The only article that is accurately sourced at Number 1 is "Nobody's Home" as peaking in "Belgium (Ultratip Flanders)". The other songs you've added either have no source or the source provided shows no evidence of an actual #1 spot peak. I'd say add "Nobody's Home" if you want to, but without accurately sourcing the other songs, they shouldn't be included in this statement. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Grip was wrong, sorry about that. Don't Tell Me - #1 in Russia Nobody's Home - #1 in Mexico and Belgium What the Hell - #1 in South Korea and Japan TheCraziestFun (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where are your sources? The Wikipedia articles for the songs? As I've said before, they are NOT sourced properly in the articles and do not show these songs as #1 (and should be removed from those articles). IF you can find a source that proves that these songs were #1 in those countries, then by all means add it, but until that time, DO NOT ADD them again. Follow the proper procedure on Wikipedia when an edit is contested. You may very well be right but when your edit is contested, you have the burden of proof. Now prove before re-adding.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Lullaby

Why do you keep typing "1.7 million" as Goodbye Lullaby's official sales? It is 1.3 million. Where did you get this information?! TheCraziestFun (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "keep" doing anything. I reverted one edit based only on the fact that the editor advertised it as original research. The statement is unsourced, so if you have a source for 1.3, by all means add it. That's far more productive than attempting to call someone out on a talk page after seeing one edit. You know what they say about people who "assume". ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't assuming anything, I was just asking where you got the information for Goodbye Lullaby's sales.TheCraziestFun (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said, I didn't get any information for sales. If I did, it'd be sourced on the article. My only edit was removing original research. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walmart Spark.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Walmart Spark.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence Discography

Thank you for the help! :) --95.250.92.213 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting images

{{adminhelp}} I am requesting admin help over standard help because this involves the deletion of images, which I believe to be restricted to admins. I am the original uploader of File:No-circle.gif and File:No circle.svg. I recently learned how to program some SVG's so I've converted my GIF to SVG so now the GIF is not needed and should be deleted. Also, I'd previous versions of the SVG version (specifically the first version) deleted. Is there a tag I should place on these images that will accomplish these tasks at some point (this isn't time-sensitive in the slightest)? Thanks for any help! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Expertly done; exactly how I preferred it. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Why have you removed this? The A.V. Club is a reliable source. It doesn't matter if the review was negative. My love is love (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that The A.V. Club was produced by The Onion, I considered it an unreliable source. The Onion is an online equivalent to National Inquirer or other tabloids that don't post legitimate articles. My basis on removing the content had nothing to do with whether or not the review was positive or negative.

However, upon further investigation it appears that The A.V. Club, while produced by The Onion does not follow the same "fake-news" format and is indeed a reliable source. My apologies. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey Scott I'm kind of new on editing wiki articles, I don't really know if this is the place to talk about it, so if it isn't please let me know :) Here's the deal: I've just added a few hours ago a row on Avril Lavigne discography, You are right about that it's not her song, but she appears in video has the main character, I though it was enough to put it there, since the Rhiana video was there too (she only appears there about 10 seconds). It's really information that i couldn't find on wikipedia navigating from avrils page. It is wrong to put it there?? perhaps add another section or comment for this?? Thanks (sorry for my english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francosuscripcion (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Rihanna song "Cheers (Drink to That)" is included as an appearance because Avril is sampled within the song itself. Thus, Avril's music makes an appearance in another song. Remember that the appearances section does not necessarily mean appeared visually, but mostly in the music itself. They are not video appearances but musical appearances. Avril being listed as participating in the music video of a song only should probably be left on the wiki for that song itself, but not the discography. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]