Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tbhotch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just nominated the 72nd Academy Awards (aka Oscars 2000) for Featured Article status. Do you have any comments or suggestions? It would be of great appreciation.
Contact kdwn 720 am they reported the news about art bell's death.
ZeMusicFan
I'm sorry for my actions. I take full responsibility for my actions. You have the right to take remove my edit so keep it.
Notifications for RfC
Hi, I hope you will advertise / inform the widest possible spectrum of editors unrelated to WP Songs, WP Albums to get a neutral community-wide perspective. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit conflict
I do hope you realize I reverted your edit that was the result of a major edit conflict, right? You may want to repost what you were trying to post there. -- tariqabjotu07:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tbhotch. I know you're not a native English speaker, and I know you encourage people to correct your grammar where it's in error... but I'm afraid your RFC post at WP:PDAB is very complex and hard to understand. It's difficult to correct your grammar for you when your meaning is unclear. I would suggest giving it another try, but try to keep your points simple and much fewer in number. PowersT13:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I undid this revision of the article. There was no challenge to the point, no request for a source. It took me seconds to google a Sports Illustrated article on the incident. You obviously didn't try. You edited without knowledge.
There are literally billions of statements in millions of wikipedia articles. Not every one of them follows a source. You do not just delete anything at your whim. First, if you think there is something factually wrong, you educate yourself. If it needs a source, try to find one. If you can't find it, challenge the point. After that has sat for a while unanswered, then you would have a right to delete the point.
I realize this is a BLP. You need to make a judgement call if something is potentially libelous. This statement obviously was not.
Replying to your reply on my talk page: No, you made an assumption of malicious editing on the part of the IP editor. A little research on another article you reverted Rita Wilden shows you again deleted proper, accurate information. I suggest you did that blindly too. It took me more research to find the more obscure information, but its there. Now I, or perhaps you too, need to review your blind deletions of content vs this IP user. We keep saying "Don't assume bad faith." I am finding factual misjudgments in your work and those hurt wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, in I Love You (Taeyeon song) and One Year Later (song), which are K-pop genre, but infobox says ballad, which is a type of song not a genre. So I reverted it but User:FudgeFury undid it because thought that "ballad is a genre according to Naver it is...it is sourced...".
I'm just dropping you a note to say that I made a correction to your grammar here. On the whole the sentence structure was good, but your opening words weren't quite grammatically correct and aren't particularly natural English. Whilst the meaning was clear, more informal openers like the example I changed it to, or terms like "Just so you know...", "You might be interested in..." or If anyone's interested..." are more natural and everyday. The second correction was to do with the subject of the third sentence. As you had linked to three different places in the first and second sentences, it's best to clarify exactly where "there" is when you reintroduce it as a subject.
Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/76th Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. If no problems, would you please lend me your support? It will be greatly appreciated! Regards.
Can you tell me how to say "There is an ongoing RFC as to whether the Visual Editor should be enabled for new users and anonymous editors." in Spanish?—Kww(talk) 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've declined your G7 as I can't see where it's been requested by the author (who doesn't seem to have edited it again after creating it). Even if he did, there's quite a few edits by others anyway. (PS - typo on fourth word of your 'Attention' warning...) Peridon (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
76th Academy Awards
Hi, TB
I did fix everything you mentioned for the 2004 Oscars regarding Featured list status.
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I have responded to you're comments on my FLC. I would really appreciated a responds. Thanks! — SoapFan12Talk17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
RERE:Respond to comments: Ok I understand, but if I change ″who has delivered an outstanding performance″ --> ″who has brought an outstanding performance″ will that be fine? — SoapFan12Talk17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, on the website of the daytime emmys, it says that ″The Daytime Emmy Award are honoring excellence in all fields of daytime″ but it says nothing about the description of a specific award (Lead Actor) — SoapFan12Talk17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I have quoted the sentence and add a ref to prove it. Are you ready to resolved you're comments or is there more? — SoapFan12Talk19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Snooki picture source link says the license if free
Britney Spears current picture is really wierd looking
Britney Spears current picture looks like a ghost, can you a find a licence free new picture
Regarding your 3RR warning
Hello! Thanks for the warning about my reverts at My_Little_Pony:_Equestria_Girls_(film). However, 3RR does not apply to reverting blatant vandalism. The user in question is inserting patent nonsense into the article, and has been blocked before for doing so. I have reported him at WP:AIV and will continue reverting him until an admin gets around to dealing with his vandalism in a more effective fashion. Cheers. --Ashenai (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tbhotch...
In regards to Madonna's "Papa Don't Preach", I am trying to -- as neutrally as possible -- explain that Brian Elliot write the song,and that for official purposes (for instance, if you wanted to record and release a cover), Eliott is considered by ASCAP to be the ONLY author of the song. Madonna's "additional lyrics" do not count towards her official authorship of the song any more that Peggy Lee's newly written lyrics in her version of "Fever" (which was written by others) allow her to receive co-credit for the song, or Aretha Franklin's newly-written bridge of "Respect" changed the fact the Otis Redding wrote the song, and retains sole authorship credit.
This is not meant to judge the worthiness of Madonna's contribution, just to note that for official purposes, in the publishing database of ASCAP, Elliot is treated as the song's sole author, and Elliot (and his publishing company) will receive all associated royalties. Make sense? 74.12.91.101 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
you have redirected the Icona Pop pages 'All Night' and 'This is...' because they were not sourced with reliable Chart information. But what about Lady Gaga 'Artpop'? It didn't chart anywhere and it isn't release yet. Why is this site allowed to be here on wikipedia? Are these rules not valid for these sides?
(Andreas81 (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC))
62nd Academy Awards
Hi,
I recently nominated the 1990 Oscars for featured list promotion. I was wondering if you could proofread it. Please note that because I do not have as much information such as in previous ones I did, the format resembles the 1st Academy Awards. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
-Birdienest81 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: Since U Been Gone
Hello, Tbhotch. You have new messages at Talk:Since U Been Gone. Message added 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
First of all, manual of style is a guideline (look at the page for yourself, it clearly states it is a guideline), not a policy. Secondly, I don't think 'June 13, 2011', nor 'Max Martin, Shellback' are really THAT difficult to understand. What you pulled would probably make it harder to understand, not easier. Since when was credits written like that, anyway? Third, I went against it because it was impractical for me. Fourth, since when that type of writing unusual or inappropriate? -Erik
I'm confused as to why you reverted my change of an image to the png (which is better due to no jpeg artifacts) and listed it as block evasion. Hopefully it is a misunderstanding that you'll gladly correct, or you could shed some light on this situation. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
When I patrol recent changes for files, I make many edits (like all of the preceding ones I've worked on in the past hour). I found that an editor had uploaded png versions of files that were superior to the jpg versions. 1 of them had been successfully put onto the article. The remaining were not, so I finished what was started. When you revert my edits, and put block evasion in the edit summary, you are suggesting that I am the block evader. I might remind you of WP:3R as if another editor makes those changes and you revert a third time, you are in violation. If you were concerned that I was uploading images that you didn't want uploaded, you should have come to my talk page, instead of accusing my of block evasion in your edit summary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Image Modification
Hi.
As you already know that the file which i had uploaded in the Commons had been listed for deletion i.e, File:125th IOC session official logo.png. I saw your message which says that the image must be kept by cropping the trophy which is in the bottom. Now the question arises, will I crop it and replace it with the existing ones ? Or you will suggest me what to do ?
Yes I admit it, it's me PilotoDi I thought you wouldn't know. I'll say it once again, why do you continue to remove my pictures? They're not harming anyone and like I said before, just let them stay and I'll stop coming back here. Anyhow since I know I'm gonna get blocked again I just wanted to tell you that and also that I'm getting real tired of the whole fake account then getting blocked thing so that's why I stopped doing it for a while, but I still wanna ask you "why won't you let my pictures stay?" like i said they don't harm anyone and their quality is really good (better than the jpg images). Please consider my proposal, leave the pictures and I'll leave. simple as that. Toodle-do
--Cooljules73 (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Marvin Marvin
Marvin Marvin is not broadcasted only by Nick, take a look at the International distribution section. Category:YTV shows lists all shows YTV broadcasts. I took a look at the IPs edits before reverting you, he did not add the 200+ articles to that category. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Joe, and I'm an intern and have helped David Horvitz on many of his Wikipedia based projects. His newest endeavor is to attempt to delete his own Wikipedia page.
I want to be able to help him and accomplish that. I'm new to the whol Wiki editing/deleting and I've accidentally thought deleting the content would bring on a deletion, but it brought on moderators claiming me as an abuser and vandal, which is incorrect.
I want to be able delete the page properly and it's public knowledge that the artist wants this to happen, if you can help me with this and provide me the information to do so according to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I've attached a link from ArtInfo that mentions this project of his to delete his own Wikipedia page. Any help would be great!
Hey there! As you may be aware, Magiciandude (talk·contribs) and I have nominated Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 for FA late last month. However, since the nomination has been opened, activity has been very slow. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to leave some comments and help revive the discussion. Thanks! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. If you had asked me about this last month, I'd do so with no problem, but I don't check FACs, FLCs or any other "Candidate" article, as they take me some time to check them, and most of time I don't have it. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Vandalising is done with intent
I'm watching the movie on tv while I'm editing on my laptop and I watched it last year too. If you haven't watched something you have no right to comment on it.
And to quote Sheldon Cooper, how can one person be an entire movie?
What makes the presence of Borat more relevant than a thug life tattoo on the Museum curator?
Then why not remove the Borat reference?
April fools day -section
Could you please explain what's wrong with the story that was reported regarding a practical joke?
Surprising that without fully reading or knowing what's wrong, you just reverted added content? Neil2000 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You mind discussing your reverts in the talk pages, buddy? I'm not talking about methylmorphine; that edit was a mistake on my part & I was planning on reverting it myself anyway. I'm talking about the pseudomorphine revert, which I stated I was about to do on the talk page prior to doing it, & you never came along & said "I don't like this edit, I want to revert it".
It would also seem that you have a history of "without fully reading or knowing what's wrong... reverting added content" without actually discussing why you're doing so first, which is proper Wikipedia etiquette. I'm reverting your revert.
You are an exemplary editor—indeed remarkable. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified! You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!
I appreciate your contributions even more, having followed your link to a rather enjoyable read. I like your aspirations, and share many of the tenets I believe you are founded upon! I look forward to future editing interactions; anticipating insightful content to ensue.—John Cline (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
62nd Oscars (1990)
Hi Tbhotch,
Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/62nd Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. If no problems, would you please lend me your support? It will be greatly appreciated! Regards.
Tbhotch - despite your claims, two of the three sources are valid. The second simply had a broken link that was fixed. The first, the Lemoore Herald, has fallen offline because it went out of business. You can't possibly be asking for original research here, as that's prohibited. The Lemoore Herald link was valid when the citation was added, and this information was on the page from 2009 to last month. Your use of "contentious" and "poorly sourced" without actual support for these claims does not make them true by autofiat. Go back and review the history of this page, specifically in reference to this information. 38.122.21.138 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)38.etc
Tbhotch - I see your concern about the Lemoore paper's website; I will change the reference to incorporate the source of the information, but remove the link to the dead site. Are all facts in Wikipedia to be removed as soon as a link dies, no matter how long they have been there? As for the two IPs I've used (38.etc and 74.etc) for this, not all of us wish to leave a trail for cyberstalkers to follow. 38.122.21.138 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's the sum total of what we've got to support the bovine insemination business:
"And his interest in bovine insemination has helped many hopeful cows become parents (though adoption is always a good option, as well)." - This from the Erie Reader, and independent newspaper given away for free. Their editorial oversight is... what?
"Meanwhile, Steve Perry is reportedly involved in the bovine insemination business, which obviously draws on his decade of experience dealing with Journey’s groupies." - This from "Popdose", which hardly looks like a reliable source. Nothing about "rekindling a childhood love for cattle" in either of them. Now this user has re-added their preferred and grossly unsourced material to the BLP with something only they have access to. A non-notable source at that. This "bovine insemination" bit needs to go. Doctalk01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Tbhotch - again, I refer you to the history of this page, in reference to this specific info. The more detailed info was in the Lemoore Advance article, which was originally live in 2009 and part of 2010. The other two links don't have as much info, granted, but are we to remove all facts from Wikipedia once the best source falls offline. It's not like we can scan and upload the actual newspaper article. What would your solution be? 38.etc/74.etc 16 Sep 2013
The WP:BURDEN is on you and on no one else if you want this included. You can ignore me, but I know what I'm talking about here. Find one acceptable source (especially one that backs up the "childhood" aspect), and it's in. Until then it stays out. That's how it works here. Cheers... Doctalk02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are denying that the Lemoore Advance IS a valid source for the item, especially when there was a live link at the time it was added. You are obfuscating by acting as if this is brand new information to the page I am adding out of nowhere, and that only information from (eternally preserved) online journalism sources is sufficient for citations. 71.106.215.231 (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hindsight is 20/20, and this never should have remained for this long with such poor sourcing. Things slip through the cracks all the time, and simply because some poorly sourced stuff remained for so long does not make it any more legitimate than if it was added today. It has been identified as a problematic addition, and you have lost your bid to keep this in the article. It is now time to move on to something else. Cheers. Doctalk04:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sure the former writers of the Lemoore Herald would appreciate knowing their articles carry no journalistic weight compared to live blog posts, as far as wikipedia's policies are concerned. It's not like anyone can upload the article - that would be "original research." For my part, I particularly enjoy the authoritative vagueness of "it has been identified as." Cheers to the Wikipedia mafia - enjoy your cronyism; it's not like Jimmy Wales is paying you lemmings out of the money he's begging on the banners every year. 71.106.215.231 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't do this for the paycheck. Especially admins. When I see that Steve Perry is into bovine insemination, I want backup for that info. Dead links from defunct newspapers, blogs and WP mirrors do not cut it. Improve the sourcing or it stays out. That is the reality. You might not like it, but that is how it is. Doctalk05:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Your signature
Having a shouty plaintext "Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!" comment halfway through your signature seems unnecessarily confusing on talk threads which have nothing to do with incorrect grammar. --McGeddon (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh. Well, if it's meant to be an explicit "please ignore WP:TALKO and correct any grammatical mistakes in this comment", I don't think many editors would take it as that - if anything, it could be read as "when you respond, please tell me if I have made any grammatical mistakes"! --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk
Hi Tbhotch! It's me, Novice7 (hope you still remember me). I was stalking your contributions (hehe, sorry!) and your English is very good. IMO, you don't have to attach that "Grammatically incorrect" tag ;) 五代 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tbotch
This is regarding the picture I have upload on Surveen Chawla's page which you have been rejecting. I hold the copyright for that image and have the clearance from the artist as well.
Not sure what makes you believe that the copyrights for the same does not belong to me. If you want any clarification, more than happy to share documents if required.
Look forward to hear from you so that I can reinstate the image thereafter. G4gurpreet (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)G4Gurpreet
Using a comparison tool, I confirmed that photo is an exact duplicate (down to the byte) of the main photo on her official Facebook page. Facebook compresses most photos after they are uploaded, so it's extremely doubtful that it's your photo. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Mora protect template
Hope you have no objections to this. I'll change it back at the end of the month. Any issues, let me know. Cheers, 04:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Dyrus refs
As requested, I added some extra references to the page to add to the reliability.
Let me know what you think.
Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song): citations
In your revert, you wrote: "publishers are needed, if they were useless, the templates wouldn't use them". In fact the template guidelines clearly say publisher is not normally needed for periodicals - see Template:Citation#Publisher. Similar advice appears at Wikipedia:Cite#What_information_to_include, where publisher is only recommended for books. The guidelines say that because publisher details are useless for all but the most obscure periodicals. How is anyone checking a reference helped by being told that, for example, The Orange County Register is published by Orange County Register Communications, or that Rolling Stone is published by Wenner Media? Or that Billboard is published by Prometheus Global Media?.
Your revert not only reinserts useless information contrary to guidelines, it also supplies information of questionable accuracy: the claimed publisher for The Orange County Register is not supported by the article on that newspaper; Rolling Stone is owned by Wenner Media but the publisher is Jann Wenner; and Billboard is published by Prometheus Global Media today, but at the time of the 2004 citation the owner was Nielsen. Removing these useless 'facts' was an improvement to the article; reinstating them damages the article. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not 'just my opinion'. Have you bothered to read the guidelines, linked above? Your response is, frankly, a lot of bluster that avoids addressing any of my points. I don't claim to own the article. Apparently you do, however, as you insist on editing it without following guidelines agreed by consensus. Try thinking about the purpose of a citation - it's there to allow a reader to check a fact. For a well-known periodical, the presence of 'publisher', even when accurate, does not help that purpose at all - that's why the guidelines recommend against it, and that's why I took them out. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks re: Hissrap18 vandalism
Hi,
Just want to say thanks for helping me nominate the 'blank' articles by Hissrap18 for Speedy Deletion - have also reported them to WP:AIV as they've just come back off a block too! Mike1901 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tbhotch for telling me about my article.I am new to wikipedia and want to know why am i not seeing move button in WWE article I am an autoconfirmed user(4 days,10edits).
But still I am unable to see move button only in this article while i can see in many others.
Also how can i start a Requested move?
Thanks for adding these to the forthcoming TFAs. What's happened to the bot that used to do this, I wonder? Anyway, glad to see that someone is clearing up after me! BencherliteTalk01:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Blink-182
Thanks for catching the incorrect protection settings there, my bad, new admin screw up. Please let me know if it doesn't look right now. Zad6822:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tbhotch. I saw your note regarding this image. The reason the file has to be deleted is because in addition to the toy being copyright, there's also a copyright on the photograph. What we need is a photograph available under license, of the copyright toy. It then gets templated similarly to this image. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Use of speedy A7 template
Hi. We may disagree on WP:NCM, but that really does not justify placing a speedy A7 on a stub on a Vietnamese actress with a substantial vi.wp interwiki article which begins with the words "People's Artist" and has copious filmography and footnotes. Như Quỳnh (actress) wouldn't apply to (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)) since vi:Như Quỳnh (diễn viên) establishes that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No, not "fine". You intentionally created a Vietnamese language stub in order that you could later complain about its deletion. Not only a Vietnamese language stub, but a Vietnamese language stub with no online references, using only an incomplete reference to a Vietnamese language hard-copy source. All technically permissible, but intended to provoke a negative reaction. That's a quintessential WP:POINT violation. Repeat it, and you will be blocked until you agree not to do it again. You have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't extend to knowingly and intentionally creating articles that will be a burden on other editors, In ictu oculi.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I just check, did you also accuse me of "intentionally created a Vietnamese language stub in order that you could later complain about its deletion," or did Kww make this bizarre accusation on his own? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Loud (album)
Don't it mention it as a dance-pop and electro-R&B album?
'Loud featured up-tempo and pop genres, ranging from dance-pop to electro-R&B, and marked the return to her dancehall roots, which was prominent on Rihanna's earlier albums Music of the Sun (2005) and A Girl like Me (2006). The album also incorporated rock in "California King Bed" and reggae in the Caribbean inspired "Man Down".'
Good Times
Ownership? My God, I surely do not want to own that article, I just noted your unilateral redirect. There's nothing to fear if you wish to send to AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Listen, you don't own wikipedia, I am shocked at your uncivil behavior. All I did was revert a redirect, do I need to beg you for permission to do that? I didn't get the memo if that's the case. If you don't like the article existing, bring it to AfD. I believe it meets WP:GNG. Its not the end of the world if we disagree!--Milowent • hasspoken03:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Tb, let it rest. There was no ownership or incivility involved. It's just a Paris Hilton single--albeit one which does seem to pass the GNG and NSONGS: it's got multiple independent sources etc. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@Drmies: So do Artpop or Applause (song) or Roar (song) or We Can't Stop, or etc. The notability guide for music is not about "the song was released by a popular artist, therefore is a notable songs" (Wikipedia:INHERITED), nor about WP:GNG, which the article neither passes as I can resume the page as "Good Time is a song by Paris Hilton featuring Lil Wayne. It was written by them and Afrojack, who also produced it. The video was directed by Hannah Lux Davis and was released on October 8 along with the song." The seven references say exactly the same "with additional songwriting provided by Paris Hilton and Lil Wayne.[1][2][3][4][5]", do we need 5 references to verify something the CD single itself can verify? Even if passes GNG, it still failing WP:NSONGS, which says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song was released yesterday/two days ago (time zone), there can't be references that speak about other things that aren't the music video, the writers, and the release date, at the moment there is no "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" that "help this to go further than a stub". Yes, the song will be notable in a few weeks, but I have a question for you both, why do we need to create a WP:CRYSTALBALLING article--in the sense that "charting" is speculation at this moment--that doesn't say anything relevant the current references already cover. Wikipedia is not a news site, and here we don't report the release dats of the songs. The article can easily be merged into her biography until it was ready to be splitted, but Milo started to own-like the article as if a reader needs to know what they already read at the LA Times or any other reference. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.04:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why we need anything on Pokemon either, but the fact (or, my prediction) is that if you bring this to AfD, which you are welcome to, it will be kept, possibly speedily. But that Milo disagrees with your decision to redirect is not a mark of ownership, and reverting his revert is not fruitful. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
United States Senate special election in New Jersey, 2013
You removed my links about endorsements for Cory Booker by Mark Zuckerberg and The New York Times even though I have refs for both. Just curious, why did you remove them?
61-1099lm (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Happy Birthday
Apparently missed for a day but still...
HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY
Y sobretodo, saludos de un hermano mexicano, soy de Mexicali Baja california, la ciudad que capturo el sol.
Prism has the same content because Prism was written first. The information about "Unconditionally" is nearly all related to album reviews or articles about the album as a while and not specifically coverage of the song independent of the article. Articles should only be created where there is a need for the article, and only once notability has already been established. Not in anticipation of notability. (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FUTURE). It doesn't matter. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- { Talk } -23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Like I said an AfD is silly cause it will be kept. I've devil's advocating the principle. Its nothing personal honestly TB! Its one of the reasons Im now semi-retiring. Wiki has become too contradictory! Btw apparently it was your birthday recently? Happy belated birthday. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- { Talk } -23:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I live with these contradictions daily, that's why I pointed to Good Time (Paris Hilton song).[3] The article was a total piece of crap at the time of AFD (and still being one but with one chart), but as there are eight references (saying exactly the same) it is a "notable article". We have the same with Venus (Lady Gaga song), which is a Twitter links farm rather than an article. But that's what readers apparently want apparently: nothing relevant that another article can have. The problem with NSONGS along with GNG along with CRYSTAL is that you can't use them together. Like in Paris Hilton case, it failed NSONGS and CRYSTAL but passed GNG, therefore is notable. NSONGS says that notabiliy is trivial if the article won't grow further than a stub, but because a topic has at least three references is notable by default, like in Belinda (Cape Verdean singer). Wikipedians now are more worried about technical stuff and not the content of the article, like in English dialects, the way we write numbers (9 or nine), the words we use, and, especially, disambiguators, like happened with Thriller (album), it was moved thanks to a stupid and badly created guide called WP:PDAB and it was justified "because the reader can be confused with albums B, C or D". The speech is always the same, you care about the readers' confusion with titles, but you demostrate no interest in the content of those articles. It is more important to write good articles rather than separate subject A from B: For example, Unconditionally was created thanks to Perry, not because somebody cared about the readers. What would have happened if I didn't redirect Unconditionally to Unconditional? Perry would have had that page and the RM drama would be there again.
Wikipedia has always been contradictory guys, its just a reflection of how the entire world (and humankind) actually works. Redirecting songs that are undoubtedly going to survive AfD is simply not worth your time as editors. Redirecting songs that undoubtedly could never survive AfD (like when fangirls occasionally create individual stubs on every song on an album) is worthwhile work, though.--Milowent • hasspoken11:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hey Tbhotch. Firstly, thanks for all the good stuff you do. I'm here to talk about the WP:TFL notification you give people. It's nothing major, just that me (User:The Rambling Man) and another ex-director (User:Dabomb87) probably shouldn't feature on your template for TFL main page appearances since we're no longer the directors. In fact, there's currently an election going at at WP:FLC to find suitable replacements. All the best to you, keep up the marvellous work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not send messages to IPV6 addresses like this, this is some sort of Proxy address utilized by Satellite ISPs (Hughesnet) for some reason or another which is dynamic so you will likely not get in contact with the user who originally made the edits by sending messages to this page. This is just a heads up. I often see random messages from concerned editors so I thought I would message back.
2001:5B0:21FF:1CF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, your removal of the hatnote looks correct. However, I had removed all hatnotes after performing the requested move but then added in a hatnote back on the film because this is a bit of an unusual one: Vicki is a redirect to the character only, so people searching for "Vicki" alone will only reach the character article and not be informed about the film. I suppose the solution is to turn it into a dab page with just the two entries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a valid point, though, the only other extant genus, Proteus, has its own common name, ala "Olm." That, and I plan to amend both pages accordingly now now that the redirect has been changed.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello dear Tbhotch, you asked for references, because you undid my contribution. So here are some towards it:
1) The Transdniestrian region was never part of the principality, but Moldovan colonists settled on the left bank of the Dniestr in the fifteenth century.
http://consulateofmoldova.in/history.html
4) After the elections in October 1990 of Mircea Snegur in Moldova who endorsed independence from former Soviet Union actively seeking western recognition declaring its independence in August 1991. But his decision not to imadiately reunite with Romania lead to the split with the "Frontul Popular din Moldova"
www.historyofnations.net/europe/moldova.html
5) To the preference in using the official name Pridnestrovie insted of using Transnistria i quote as a translation the german newpaper page http://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/das-stuck-aus-dem-spaghetti-western
... in the western hemisphere the well-functioning democratic republic better known as "Transnistria" - a name that Pridnestrovians not want to hear, because the derived from Romanian name evokes the memory of the Romanian occupation during the Second World War: "Transnistria, which were the ones killing fields' of the Romanian fascists, a huge chaotic zone in which hundreds of thousands of deported Jews and Roma were left to certain death."
6) The real question is whether the area is before (Russian pri / rum. Cis) or behind (Latin: trans), the Dniester is a question of geographical and to some extent the political position of the observer.
7) The official name is indeed "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic," short PMR (Russian Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika). Therefore, I plead with current, not historical records, for a preferred use of the local common country name "Pridnestrovie" officialy decreed as of 29 November 2000 within the pages instead of the old Nazi Axis territory term "Transnistria".
http://radiopmr.org/golos/list/9/
Hopefully that is enough reference text for to understand my small contribution. Hope you will like to revert your revert after reading my mild contribution on the page again :) Thank you.--178.193.101.176 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at the substantive edit history. I have been attempting to prevent one editor from repeatedly adding his unreferenced opinion to this article, and several others. Reverting in this manner may not be ideal, but what else is to be done when an editor will not listen to reason or discuss in good faith? ---The Old JacobiteThe '4501:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I just wanna say thank you for monitoring my lists from disruptive editors. I wish you could proofread 1996 and 1989 Oscars, but you're still busy I presume. Anyways, thanks for the help!!!
Sorry homes but in the article it says The album combines R&B and hip hop sounds from her previous albums along with a new pop and dance direction so I think removing hip hop is unfair as it's sourced aight? 86.170.122.52 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tbhotch, can you please take care of the page Travelling Without Moving? If "ballad" would appear in the infobox, which the term is not a genre, remove it.
For the record, I very much appreciate your work at AfD. I happen to disagree with you on this one, but I appreciate your contributions nonetheless. Wikipedia is lucky to have you as a contributor. --Another Believer(Talk)22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in the United States
Why did you delete my edit regarding the continuous Northeast Corridor? I think this is truly a salient point which needs to be pointed out, not "trivial" as you wrote in your edit summary. Is there another way of expressing the same idea that would be acceptable to you?173.63.177.192 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
How about "Jurisdictions in the entire Northeast Corridor outside of Pennsylvania have legalized same-sex marriage."? Important I think to point out such a stark regional phenomenon, don't you think? I mean I realize there's a diagram there, but that shouldn't preclude pointing out an important fact and would in fact reinforce it. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Since you agree it could be added, can you please accept it? Been in pending review for some time now, doesn't seem fair. Just noticed a tiny mistake at the top of your edit page here, should read "I am not an administrator..." 173.63.177.192 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Just got accepted, thanks. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:SONGCOVER
Tbhotch, I just want to make sure about the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER. Only notable covers by other artists should be mentioned but only if they were to comply with WP:NSONGS right? And being covered on music talent shows doesn't really count it am I right? The reason I'm asking is because I'm having a disagreement over at Pero Me Acuerdo de Ti and I don't want to escalate over an edit war. Erick (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, well alright. I generally only allow covers that ranked on music charts, won/nominated an award, and live performances at a music award show on articles I work on. I've readded the covers as I do not want to start an edit war over it. Erick (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask about [4] I made the image myself with Finale (software). It is not a scan of a score. Nor does the score actually contain anything written just as such, although the chord does occur in the piece in other ways. Does Torke really own the copyright just on the chord itself? --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions)05:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take a brief look at 61st Academy Awards for featured list candidacy. I understand that you are very busy in real life (although I think you said you were not going to be too busy after all), but I would greatly appreciate the help as you did with most of my other ceremony lists. Also, I promise this will be the VERY LAST OSCAR CEREMONY I hope to aim to promote in 2013 (my next one for the 66th Academy Awards will probably be in early January 2014). Anyways, I hope you take time to respond.
In what way did i say i owned the page? I just reverted you, that was an extremely inappropriate tag. You should know better. Koala15 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was a redirect template now it makes sense. And in the future please use an appropriate tag when warning a user. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
RE:1989 Oscars/Barnstar
Hello there, TB
I've read your list of errors and I swiftly managed to fix them in lightning speed. Thank you for the Barnstar! I am very humble and grateful. I owe it to you since YOU are the one who taught me how to play the game fair and square since the '10 Oscars. It's too bad though that I have a class which might slow down my work, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I'm proud of the work we've accomplished since 2010. And I'm definitely not finished her; so stay tuned.
Can you check out this guy, several people have sourced on 3x Rihanna's albums (Loud, Talk That Talk and Unapologetic) the genre R&B and he keeps changing them and he has been involved in a genre war less than 24 hours and I think he is an unfair and not a team player on Wikipedia and to add to it he is also being rude to people and has been warned he would be blocked if he changes the genres. H.Mandem (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Lord! Tbhotch knows me and he also knows I wouldn't do this kind of thing if there is no reason for that. You used 2 accounts and an IP to revert me, meaning you are sockpuppeting and can get far away more blocked from me. I don't have nothing against including R&B as a genre as long as you provide reliable source for it which explicitly states that the albums is "R&B"! — Tomíca(T2ME)18:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As simple as this: WP:AOHA. Now, if you believe admins need to be involved go to WP:ANI. Your intentions to the project are contructive, but your editing pattern is poor at writing and sourcing skills. Your lack of understanding of the WP:MOS, ignoring the fact you are member of a MOS division, is incredible for someone who has created more than 100 articles and has edited for four years. For example Wrecking Ball: "Wrecking Ball is a 1989 song by Neil Young, from Freedom (Neil Young album)" First, this is a song, not an album, therefore "Wrecking Ball" is not italicized, but it goes in quotes; second, "from Freedom (Neil Young album)" is also wrong. We don't say "Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) is a song by American recording artist Gwen Stefani featuring Eve (entertainer)" we simply say ""Rich Girl" is a song by American recording artist Gwen Stefani featuring Eve". This is the same in every single article I found it was written by you, and it is not that I'm "stalking your contributions", is that your editing style always is the same. Any article created by you is an article based upon books (what makes them reliable? Just because they are books they are not reliable by default), and their notability relies in the references. They contain trivial information that only tries to prove the subject exists, for example in [5]; why "The scene thus remains low key, with bands playing in private bars (no government stadium nor sports hall would host such shows)." is relevant to the band, why government-owned buildings would not allow these events? This sentence adds nothing to the page and creates a new question, also "Top bands at the end of" the 1990s include Cobra (an all-female band), Tang Chao (Tang Dynasty), Heibao (Black Panther)..." [sic] why it is relevant to the page as well? These WP:QUOTEFARMS are not helpful and they distract from the main point of the article. Also, quotes don't belong to the references section, they belong to the article. Rather than say in the references "Top bands at the end of" the 1990s include...", you could easily say in the main text "Ling Dian is considered to be one of the top Chinese bands [instert verb] at the end of the 1990s, according to [Source]". You go to the point, you demostrate relevance, and you don't distract the attention of the person.
You're taking this personal, despite the fact I said "keep" at the AFD, if this were a vendetta I would have said delete, and request the deletion of Zang as well. The problem with the articles you create are always the same in the article content:
a) stub articles whose application of the MOS is poor or lacks it, their references are not clear (they don't use the {{cite book}} parameters), contain quote farms (despite the copyright issues), in some cases, they are a rephrase of their title (as happened with Như Quỳnh (actress) or Lingdian), and you justify their creation as "per WP:STUB, I have the right", as if STUB allows you to create them with these failures. Doesn't WP:STUB includes the section WP:PSA and it says "articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted", or a link to the essay "how to write a better article"?. You do not understand the word "context", nor "notability", because if that were the case your articles wouldn't end up at AFD or CSD. Wouldn't be easy to explain why Zang Tianshuo passes WP:BAND when you create the article, and not to wait until it is at AFD? Swingin Party explains why it is a notable song and it is unlikely to be AFDed, why Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) couldn't be created like that or its current status? You prefer to create stub articles whose notability is poor and not to put effort to them until the moment they are in trouble.
b) your biased contributions. I won't check all the articles you've created (because you consider I'm harassing you) but Wo zhe shi nian is biased. "The album is considered his most representative work" -> {{weasel}}; "Zang started as a hard rocker, but had mellowed his sound since 1985 and in 1993 began to record tracks that produced a soft rock album" -> unsourced, and unsourced genres are considered as original research; "a large number then and since for a Chinese hard rock" -> the same issue; "The hit single "Pengyou"", why it was a "hit-single", and who says it is a "hit-single". We don't say "Poker Face is a hit-single by Lady Gaga"; "China-wide recognition", 1 billion people recognize him?; "feelgood music." -> what does that means and who says it? Several basic mistakes in a simple stub article.
c) your ownership of articles and pages you create or upload (files). It is more than clear what I'm referring to, you reverted basic changes just to remove a valid tag from a page you created. You have removed CSD tags ignoring the instructions to not remove them when you are the creator, etc.
d) the irony you consider "harassment" and "stalking" as a personal attack, but at the same time you cite no references about this, you attack me and maybe in your past other users (didn't you call me "troll" several times?; if I'm trolling go to WP:AIV and this troll will be blocked.) You are the typical offended editor, something is an attack to you and the solution to end up it is attacking as well. Also, the blatant "harassment" you left at my talk page while I was writing this section. Why do you need to "keep the record", I'm not a sock to "keep the pattern", I'm not a vandal to create a WP:LTA case, rather than making subliminal threatings, perform them, go to the Noticeboard of your choice and post them there (with that comment you left you are saying "I'll post this here despite the fact you can remove it, but I don't give a fuck if you remove it, it'll be in the page history and if I find it necessary to use it against you I'll do it", that's just a provocation.
e) the lack of understanding of the WP:NFCC criteria. This page is not a formalism, is a rule that you have to follow or otherwise the Wikimedia Foundation can receive legal threats. It is more important to avoid copyvios than creating articles or disambiguate page A from B. Being WP:STUBS is not a reason to "I can put several quotations to the page to prove notability", being stubs is a reason to add short and relevant quotes to the page without violating the fair use rulings of the US. A few days ago, you uploaded File:Zang Tianshuo Wo zhe shinian.jpg to be used in the article Zang Tianshuo, didn't I notify you about WP:NFCC#1 with File:Belinda Cabo Verde.jpg? Non-free album covers are not decorative, and are not to be used outside the album page. Images and quotes, in both cases, are to be used carefully. And you appear to use them as decorative text. Grace Sherwood was delisted from its WP:FA status due to the blatant copy-pastes and paraphrasis, something you tend to do with the stubs you create. You don't need the whole quote, you need to justify the use of the quote. We don't need the image, especially if it can be replaced, and if it can't, it has to follow the copyright standards.
f) you cannot co-work with others. Evidence? Just this without searching for more evidence that can become "harassment". Kevin puts you in your place, and several users agreed with the A7 application. Yes, he speculated about an absurdism (the 'you created it to expect someone to delete it to later complain' idea), but you said "I would have to say I am speechless. Can I ask where you got such an idea? Tbhotch never said this ... And I would like to close this conversation here." Some hours later you asked me to go there and tell Kevin I never said that (as in fact I never said that). I didn't go there because of that final comment, "And I would like to close this conversation here." You wanted it close, why you wanted it to be re-open? The ironies; you don't want people to speculate about you or your editing, but you do it as well. When I requested the deletion of Quỳnh you said that I did it because "[I] went to the article and put a speedy on it because [you] created it as part of disambiguating the singer" as if I cared about a singer that in my life I have heard of; and the fact you said once in a RM discussion "closer, ignore him", if my opinion has no value why the fuck you get offended by it or try to make it less?; or that you created Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) just because I made a comment "why do we need to disambiguate Applause (song) to Applause (Lady Gaga song) is Applause (disambiguation) doesn't include other songs". You considered it "pointy", but you created it anyway. My edits are pointy because they involve you, but yours are not because they involve me? You want me to WP:AGF in you, but you have given me enough reasons to not assuming good faith in you or your editing.
Who is "Kevin" ? - is this your pal the pop music editor who threatened to block me because I created a stub on a Vietnamese 1960s singer which you tried to speedy delete? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I will say it again, please stop stalking my stub creations and placing frivolous tags and deletion requests.
"Who is "Kevin" ? - is this your pal the pop music editor who threatened to block me because I created a stub on a Vietnamese 1960s singer which you tried to speedy delete? " is a perfectly legitimate comment on my part. Now please stop stalking me. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You tagged a number of pages with {{pp-semi}} betwen 03:45 and 04:51 on November 18. Would you please reverse that, except for those few (if any) pages which really were semi-protected? If you don't, I'll just have to revert all your edits during that time, even those which weren't improper tagging, even if they might be removal of vandalism. — Arthur Rubin(talk)13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding the tag does nothing. There is a bot which removes the tag when the article isn't (semi-)protected and possibly adds the tag when the article is semi-protected. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Tbhotch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mexico State., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of source in 1 edit, and adding citation needed tag for same statement in next edit
I have undone these two edits. To remove a print reference footnote citation saying "one of the top bands of 1990s" with 1 edit, and then with the second edit add tag to "one of the top Beijing bands of 1990s" [citation needed] is not improving the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tbhotch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
![[4]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Torke%27s_Vanada_%281984%29_chord.png){kind=link}
