User talk:Timmeh/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with Timmeh. 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.

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - ... (up to 100)

Appeal to Reason tour

Hey, the AfD was relisted on October 27, so I think it will remain open again for a further 5 days, or until today at some point. I think there’s also a backlog of a day or 2 with closing the debates, so it may finally get seen to by Nov 3. If it hasn’t been sorted by then, I will chase it up. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Billy

Permanently blocked sockpuppet (User:SlayerXT). Hope this clears it up. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clearing it up. Tim meh ! 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a response

in response to your question here: Scarian blocked Billytalent88 for being a sockpuppet of SlayerXT, and then, for some reason that i don't quite understand, reverted ever single on of his edits. I've tried to explain to Scarian (multiple times) that just because somone had some bad edits doesn't automatically make all of there edits bad, but either Scarian completely ignored me, or it just didn't sink in. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is a sock of an indefinitely blocked vandal. He is therefore not welcome or allowed to edit Wikipedia. If that is so, then all of his edits must be reverted. I know it may be frustrating for you to have to correct things that were originally fixed by the blocked editor and then reverted by another editor, but you have to understand that that editor is not allowed to edit. Just because he edited in good faith after using an illegal method to make himself able to edit doesn't mean that his indefinite block should be negated, lifted, or otherwise made ineffective. You cannot ignore Wikipedia guidelines and policies just because a blocked persistent vandal chooses to make a few good edits. Tim meh ! 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlayerXT wasn't a vandal. He had some editing issues, sure, but none of his edits were vandalism, a few were POV and a couple controversial. I think the newcomer is being bit quite a bit here, he just wants to edit wikipedia, and he's tried *(on 5 different accounts) and been blocked on each one. Nobody has taken the time to explain to him why he is blocked or what he did wrong. Something's messed up with that. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 01:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a disagreement with the reasons that SlayerXT was blocked, you'll have to take that up with the admin who blocked him, which I blieve is User:Scarian. All I know is that the person was blocked several times, and a reason was given each time that seemed legitimate. Based on that, SlayerXT's edits and all his sock edits must be reverted. You'll have to discuss the indef block issue with Scarian if you disagree with his block. Tim meh ! 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few times SlayerXT was warned about numerous things such as copyvio (by myself) and apparent vandalism by other users (see his talk page etc.). It's not that dialogue hasn't been entered into (it has, by many different users), but SlayerXT doesn't seem to want to engage. I hope this is satisfactory, Luke. Take care, guys. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2013

I'm in a dispute at that article, concerning the date of the US Presidential Inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidential election results

Hello, I've been updating the latest US presidential election results. I'm using CBS news, CNN, and BBC News. I always make sure they're all in agreement with each other. I'm just an amateur reader of Wikipedia, and, to be honest with you, it didn't occur to me that I would be the only person interested in updating the Preidential results. I assumed there'd be a lot of other people doing it as well, which is why I didn't record the sources. I shall try to record the souces from now on. (Ajs41 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's alright. It is best to pick one reliable source and stick to it, rather than use several sources. If you want, you can change the edit note next to the popular vote numbers to reflect the source of your info, or you can just update them according to the source that's already there. Tim meh ! 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DFL Senate endorsement

Hi Timmeh, Over on the Al Franken page, you changed "Challenging him for the Democratic endorsement was Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, ..." to "Challenging him for the Democratic nomination was Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, ..." . I believe "endorsement" is actually more accurate. In Minnesota parties endorse candidates through the caucus process in the Spring, which is followed by a primary in the Fall. All of the major DFL candidates agreed to support in the primary whichever candidate won the endorsement of the party through the caucuses. Franken won the DFL endorsement at the convention in June. So though Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and the rest wanted to earn the DFL nomination for Senate, since they accepted the endorsement process and didn't apply to be on the primary ballot, they never really were in the running for the nomination.

So though it is a technical detail, I think "endorsement" is a better word. Maybe some of this background could be explained on the Franken page, but I am not sure that it is worth the space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crumley (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't know about the differences in the Minnesota process. Change it back if you wish (if you haven't already done so). Tim meh ! 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sum 41 images

Since I last edited the Sum 41 article in February, this image was added: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:DeryckWhibley.jpg When I added images with similar content, you vigorously argued that the article doesn't merit the inclusion of individual photos. Please explain why that photo is better than this one: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Sum41-2.jpg .. and as well, why you support individual photos in the article now. Alexdi (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), you inserted those three images in a row at the top of the article. I believe I explained why they should not be there. As for the picture now on that article, it is not in a very awkward place in the article (at the top), and it is only one single picture, compared to the three (again, correct me If I'm remembering incorrectly) images that you added all the way back in February. I have no idea when the current image was added, and if you look at my edit count, you'll see that I was not actively editing for several months during the summer. I do not actively patrol that article any longer, but, looking at it now, I do believe that image is out of place. It has no informational purpose being in the article, and the picture seems recent, while it is located in the Beginnings section of the article. Feel free to remove that image, but I did not put it there and have no idea why or when it was put there and by whom. If any image is to be placed in that section, it should be related to the content of the section and provide additional relevant information for the reader. Tim meh ! 01:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been part of the article since late August. Since then, you've made approximately 20 edits, so I assumed you must have approved of its existence. If you'd rather remove it, that's fine. Otherwise, I'll replace it and the other blurry shots with the original images from February. Not in their former location, of course. Someone who knows more about the band will presumably provide the relevant content. Alexdi (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images should not even be in the article unless they provide the reader with more relevant information than they would get from reading the text alone. I don't believe your images have any relevancy to any part of the article, save for a section about the band performing live at the place or event the image was taken. Tim meh ! 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of People from Pennsylvania

Is there any fixed template for what a page that lists people from a certain state should look like? The PA one has it split into sections containing "Athletes, Politicians, Astronauts etc.", while the NJ one has "Born in NJ, Born Elsewhere grew up in NJ, etc." Second does every entry one there need a specific citation?PonileExpress (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WikiProject Pennsylvania page?

Where is it? I cannot find it. By the way do you want to start a WikiProject Northeast PA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania. And no, I don't because nobody will join and there's really no point. Tim meh ! 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could add pictures to all the local articles.PonileExpress (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd probably have to wait until summer to do that. Tim meh ! 04:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just lunchtime.PonileExpress (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concerning Folie à Deux

some resistant dude can't seem to admit that Fall Out Boy and the album mentioned: Folie à Deux is Pop Punk, but he is just being stubborn reverting it and putting it as Pop, and some unusual idea to list it as R&B and Funk.

I'll leave it to you to decide what it is going to be.

Both of you have violated the three revert rule. I suggest you do not make any more reverts and try to talk this out on the talk page. Tim meh ! 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]

"is standard language American grammar" ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but Foo Fighters is an American band, so American grammar should be used. (no offense to you English folk) :) Tim meh ! 02:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course! That's what I meant. I was just stating that there is no such thing as correct and modernising your edit summary ;-) I've always been a strong proponent of using American grammar for American subjects! Have a sweet Christmas week, friend! :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Timmeh! And have a Happy New Year! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE-02

The reason I made the edit was because it seemed logical to me. If we have Obama as having won the Electoral votes for 28 states and NE-02, surely it makes sense and is logical to have McCain as having won 22 states minus NE-02 - as surely saying that he won 22 states suggests that he won 22 states in their entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirrontail (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain did win the popular vote in 22 states; that's what that's going by. If we put 22-(NE-02), we'd also have to mention his loss in DC, which would just clutter up the infobox. The states won field should show popular vote wins in any state/district with at least one electoral vote. Just like we don't say "50-28" to get McCain's 22 states won, we should not say "22-(NE-02)". Tim meh ! 19:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Obama won the Popular vote in 28 states, is that justification for ignoring NE-02 for Obama then? No of course not, if we are mentioning Obama's partial win of a state then we should mention McCain's partial lose - otherwise the figures don't add up. Why exactly would we need to mention the loss in DC? Obama won DC totally, there is no need to include DC with McCain. McCain didn't totally win Nebraska.

We don't say 50-28 because we aren't suggesting McCain won all 50 states. However through saying 22 states we are saying McCain fully won 22 states, which he didn't. Saying 22-(NE-02) simply adds extra clarification to the system that Nebraska uses, rather than being overly anal with using 50-28.Sirrontail (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restarted this discussion on the article's talk page, so that other editors can have their say and hopefully provide some useful input on this issue. Tim meh ! 01:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

I was looking at the 2004 presidential election wiki, and I looked at the map gallery on there. I want to do something like that for the 2008 election wiki, but I'm not sure how to get the images uploaded onto wikipedia so it'll show up. How do I do that? -- Frightwolf (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to upload an image: Wikipedia:Upload. I believe the images that Electiontechnology was talking about on the talk page are under Creative Commons licenses. Tim meh ! 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licenses? What does that mean, exactly? EDIT: Never mind, I clicked on the link Election gave. I will try to upload the gallery as soon as possible. -- Frightwolf (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have made the map gallery. It was auto-edited for whatever reason, but I reverted it with the reasoning in the Edit Summary. Tell me what you think if you can! -- Frightwolf (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Quick question. The ImageTaggingBot messaged me and stated I did not have the license status for the voting shifts image. I'm not really sure how to work that one out. I'm looking at the list of copyright tags on Wiki, but how do I determine accurately which one goes with an image? -- Frightwolf (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the copyright tag for you. It's the one for works of art, as the tag for screenshots is not valid for a screenshot of an image. I also redid the rationale information so that it's more specific. Tim meh ! 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2008

Hiya Timmeh. I'm considering reporting the IP, to the Administrators. I believe he/she has breached 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, he/she has violated 3RR after being sufficiently warned. I'll report the IP for you. Tim meh ! 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Timmeh. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might be back again, under a new IP account. See also Norm Coleman article. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Eleven page

Hi

Are you the person editing the Finger Eleven page putting in someone named Sam Boyd? There was no one playing guitar in the band in 2008 by that name. I should know since I work for them on their road crew.

Please do not post this miss information.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walken123 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check the page history before accusing someone of something they didn't do or edits they didn't make. Also, it doesn't matter what you know or think you know about the band. To have information about the band shown on Wikipedia, it must have a reliable source, and original research is looked down upon and doesn't belong here. Tim meh ! 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blagojevich

Timmeh, The reason I got rid of Blagojevich on presidential elections of 2016 is because of him going to court and possibly not being the Illinois Governor anymore. They could also send him to Jail. I believe this would tarnish him and I don't believe he will run in 2016. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.211.3 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you believe. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not original research. Tim meh ! 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA nom

Hey, Timmeh! I noticed that you sometimes edit Indestructible (Disturbed album). I would like to ask if you'd like to participate in an FA nomination process for this article. If you would, please say so here. The purpose in having you notify me at the article's talk page, rather than through our own talk pages, is because you are not the only user I am requesting this of, and I would like to keep all participants' names in one area to be organized and tidy. Thanks for your time. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow

I gave my two cents on Version 3. Hope that helps. -- Frightwolf (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. That's one more step toward a consensus. I was getting tired of the never-ending discussion between two editors. Tim meh ! 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Like I said, the discussion itself, though I'd hate to belittle the arguments made by people, is a kind of silly in the sense that popular vote means nothing in terms of winning. It'll help you "secure a mandate" like Obama can, but it has nothing to do with how close an election was in terms of actually winning it. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the only way it would be narrow is if the electoral vote was massive but only a few thousand votes in several states would have tipped the scales. In that case, yeah, it'd be a narrow victory, but 2004's was close enough. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I think I've got a suggestion that might finally put this semantics debate to bed. Hopefully it works for everyone. Let me know what you think. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, considering there's dissent from one person, and I truly believe he hasn't properly addressed any of my arguments, couldn't we just go along and keep the word narrow in there? I mean, really, everyone agrees on Version 3. There's pretty much just one person, and his reasoning about popular vote, as if Bush won by 3,000,000 when Kerry only needed 1% of that in Ohio in order to win, is pretty bad. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible (Disturbed album)

I hope you're willing to join in on the FAC discussion for the Indestructible album, as "The Guy" is wondering why you haven't joined in.--Al max 999 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give him my sincerest apologies. I'm currently entrenched in a debate on another article, in addition to my busy life outside Wikipedia. I likely won't have a chance to read everything and comment until Wednesday, if at all. Tim meh ! 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Well how come when I do the math from results from this website, I get 9.81%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.210.107 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do the math again. It comes out to a margin of about 9.95%. Tim meh ! 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result

No grudge, just a difference in the direction I'd like to see Wikipedia grow. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panic at the Disco

panic's new album is undescribility. im the sorce, i work with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.100.95 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, they just released a new album last year. Second, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its information. You are not a reliable source, so unless you find one saying that that really is their new album, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Tim meh ! 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Blink-182 album

This is not a matter of consensus. The album is Untitled, as per direct quotes from band members. There are sufficient links to such articles in the discussion section. Having asked all band members personally at meet & greets, it is unequivocally Untitled. And the vast majority of blink-182 fans agree which can be seen on message boards and forums such as [2] The only reason there is confusion is because uninformed, and not intense blink fans would assume its self titled because generally when an album does not have a title it is considered self-titled. But in this case, that is a definite misnomer. This album is Untitled, confirmed by direct quotes from the band in articles from MTV & others. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The label's website, as well as the band website and numerous online stores, seem to disagree with you and the "intense blink fans". Tim meh ! 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page

I can never really be bothered to set one up, to be totally honest with you. Prophaniti (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything simple would be fine, such as a little information about yourself, your interests, and what you do here on Wikipedia. No need to get overly complicated with the design (like mine). Of course, you could also just type one simple sentence just so you have a user page and that your signature isn't a red link. Tim meh ! 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curiuos

Has anybody ever considered, creating a Confederate States presidential election, 1861 article? I wonder who (if anybody), ran against Davis. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea who ran against Davis. I just did some quick Google searching and found that the election process was the same, but I doubt the Confederate States could have had an actual election with the people electing the electors after just rebelling against the US. That would be a good article to start if we could find some information about it. Tim meh ! 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it would be a challenging article. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative counter

I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one a couple of weeks ago, and I already started using it. Thanks anyway. Tim meh ! 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey Dokey

I'm sorry for changing Escape the Fate's genre so much. It is kind of an inside joke with my friends. You do have to admit they are a little reminiscent of glam metal though. I wish i had a reference. But all right I won't do it anymore. Thanks for not being a dick about it too. You were pretty kool about asking me not to do it, unlike some other wikipedia-nazis i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.229.202 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Next time you wish to add information to articles, I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:CS so you know how to correctly cite a reliable source. Tim meh ! 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeline (Papa Roach Song)

Hello,I created this article and added almost everything on it.I added all the references and links and the cover etc.Only thing i didnt was a couple of vandilsm quotes and the that quote by Troy Palermo.Do I Get any credit for this, other than saying it on my User Page??? Peace Out—Permethius (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You can mention it on your user page if you want. But the article is still only a start class at most. There is not much info there at all, and the references aren't formatted correctly. It could use some more work.Tim meh ! 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check The Discussion—Permethius (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

There you go. Why haven't you had it before? You've been around for a long time! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was just content with Twinkle and never really thought about getting rollback. Thanks for it, though. Tim meh ! 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a little help

Instead of just reverting to a bad version of a page, fix the problem. Half hour of power is not a studio album, but Fezmar9 seems to think so. There has been extensive discussion on this in the past on the Sum 41 talk page. I'm not good with tables, please remove it from the studio albums section and put it where it belongs...70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Does this look infected?, Too, is an EP, not a live album (even though the songs are live) 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source cited or that you can provide that says the releases are EPs? If not, it has to be assumed to be a full-length studio album. Tim meh ! 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EP itself says so.... I don't know what's more reliable than that.... i can work on getting a scan for that... I'm pretty sure this was discussed before, and a consensus was reached in which you yourself agreed it was an ep Talk:Sum 41/Archive 1#Half Hour of Power not an album?. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops never mind that link, let me find the real one... that was a much older one... 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's since been removed, but your exact words in this edit were: """:You're right. HHOP is an EP. Amazon.com confirms it, although the band's official site doesn't label it as an EP for some reason. Tim meh ! 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)""[reply]

70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yellowcard

Spooky, I was going to drop you a message about collaborating on Lights and Sounds, but you've beaten me to the punch. Thank you for the compliment regarding "Lights and Sounds", just doing my job, since it is one of my favorite Yellowcard songs. Hmmm, I have seen the article, and its somewhat in good shape, but I think a little effort can be put to make a good article. I'll try to see what I can do, in the meanwhile, would you like to collaborate with me in expanding Lights and Sounds and making it a good article, in the process? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help you improve it. Tim meh ! 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Timmeh, how you been? Listen, I'd hate to bother you, but I was wondering if you knew if Yellowcard were nominated for any awards for Lights and Sounds? Cause, I can't seem to find anything on that and you seem to know a lot about them, so. Reason I ask, I'm expanding the album and I just want to know if anything is around, so it can be added. BTW, "Lights and Sounds" was promoted to GA status, thought I should let you know. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they were nominated for any awards. I checked around a little and couldn't find anything, so I really don't know anything about any awards for that. Sorry. Tim meh ! 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that's great that "Lights and Sounds" was promoted to GA status. Now, we just need to make those improvements to Lights and Sounds that I mentioned on the talk page, and it too can be promoted to GA class. Tim meh ! 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then I guess people didn't like the album. Per the reviews. Alright, just needed to know, thanks. Yeah, if Lights and Sounds is promoted to GA, as well as "Rough Landing, Holly", we can have ourselves a good topic, which is what I'm aiming for. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate bothering you again, but I was wondering if you can do me a favor in copy-editing Lights and Sounds. If you don't have time, its understandable. But, if you can, I would truly appreciate it. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Glad to help. Just ask if there's anything else you need to know or need done on the article. Tim meh ! 00:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the help. I appreciate it a whole lot, that I think you deserve this:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I, ThinkBlue, hereby award Timmeh the Copyeditor's Barnstar for copy-editing Lights and Sounds to ensure that it will pass GA. Thanks and keep up the good work. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! But I think you are deserving of one much more than me. Tim meh ! 02:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, besides you deserve it, with "fixing" my mistakes, so. :) We're so close in getting that GT. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you [again] but I was hoping if you could copy-edit "Rough Landing, Holly", I appreciated your copy-edit skills on Lights and Sounds, just wondering if you could do the same for the song article. Also, I was hoping if you could maybe expand the song's sound, but wondering if you could add/fix the music video section, only if you have time, if not it's cool. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I likely won't have time to really expand anything until at least this weekend, but I'll be happy to copy-edit the article tonight. Tim meh ! 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine, I'm mean I'm not demanding that the info. get expanded, its just that I do intend on nominating the article to GAN, and there are some reviewers who do write in the reviews that a bit of info. be included. But, if you do get to do it this weekend, it would be appreciated, a whole lot. Cool, I look forward to your fixes in the article. :) Also, if I keep messing up the red "font color", I'm sorry, its just that I don't know how HTML's really work. That's why. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at your signature code to see if I could suggest a fix for it so it wouldn't mess up my font colors, but everything is closed correctly. It may be that your use of "span style" overrides the font tag. Would you mind changing your signature to this: [[User:ThinkBlue|''' ThinkBlue ''']][[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]] [[User:ThinkBlue/Autograph book|'''BLUE''')]] That code is shorter as well and does the same thing I think. Tim meh ! 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry about that "link" thing on the "Rough Landing, Holly" page. I had changed the link to a different template and then decided to change it back, but I'm so used to adding album reviews that I inadvertently named it "link" instead of official website. Tim meh ! 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did copy-edit the article, something that I asked you to do; I think it would come off as conflict-of-interest. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't exactly sure if that counted as significant enough contributions to create a conflict of interest. Also, would you mind changing your signature to what I suggested above? It looks exactly the same; it just has all the HTML tags closed so it doesn't change the font color of the rest of the page to black. Thanks. Tim meh ! 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't want to get in trouble with the COI thing. Besides, some[one] will review it, and then afterwards we can nominate it at GTC. :) Um, the first time you told me to "change" my signature, I did a test and it wasn't what I wanted. I did another test and its looks fine, so hopefully it doesn't mess up your talkpage. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mess up my talk page anymore. Thanks for changing it. Tim meh ! 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 election

i honestly don't know if there are formal rules for inclusion. it just seems to me that on the obscurity index, the green party candidates are equals to keyes, so to speak. the green candidates, and the constitution party candidates, apparently merit inclusion, so it just seems...arbitrary to exclude keyes. i'm not married to the issue one way or the other, really. Anastrophe (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Does Keyes have as much notability within the Republican Party as the Green and Constitution candidates have within their own? As for inclusion criteria, I suggest you bring it up on the presidential election wikiproject or on the 2008 election talk page. Tim meh ! 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff (song)

Um this is an article about a song from Slipknot that hasnt been released nor have I heard anything or read anything about it.I've had it for AFD for a couple days now. Could you read it and delete it?Im not a Admin yet Peace Out-Permethius (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I have no power to delete an article. Also, you did not correctly nominate the article for deletion. What is your reasoning for deleting the article? I can't find one shown in the incorrectly added template. I removed the AFD tag because of these reasons, but if you can give me a reason for deletion, I will reinsert the tag for you. Tim meh ! 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country music

Okay so I was reading your userboxes and noticed you think mankind cannot progress unless country music is abolished so here's an honest request I jut want to know one legitimate reason why all country music is bad. Thanks. Kreeningsons (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like country music. Tim meh ! 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer!!!!! Tim meh ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreeningsons (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the bubble tea!

-down load | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hmm...bubble tea. It sounds tasty. Tim meh ! 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ELection of 2008

Timmeh, on the current discussion page, the consensus appears to be against the word 'narrowly' by a 3-1 margin. "Narrowly" is highly POV, as I can add several references that say it was not 'narrow'. It also adds nothing to the discussion (in context) other that promoting a view that you appear to agree with. So we have THREE reasons to remove it" current consensus (as shown on the discussion page). NPOV , and relevance. So please stop reverting my edits. If you believe you are correct, please make a case on the 'discussion' page and stop the edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.37.220 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page again for the real consensus. It is absolutely not 3-1. Tim meh ! 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

X clamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the smile! I can just taste the WikiLove in the air. :) Tim meh ! 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Page

Soryy I didnt realize they were the same colors, will change letters clolr, but i like the black.PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for changing it. Tim meh ! 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

If you think I've been uncivil towards you, please make a report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I'm confident you will find an administrator willing to block me for my behavior. If you need assistance with making the report, please let me know. I'd be happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to have anyone blocked right now. Also, please do not patronize me; I've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works and how to make these reports. But thanks anyway for coming to my talk page and badgering me here instead of there. Would you care to stop anytime soon? Tim meh ! 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for not reviewing your editing history. I have no knowledge of how long you've been here. Please assume good faith. Since you do not plan on making a report, this discussion is concluded. Thanks for your time, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACC account creation interface

Confirmation edit: I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. Tim meh ! 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your application. I am pleased to advise you that it has been approved. Please read the guide before attempting to use the system. For the moment, you will be limited to creating 6 accounts per day, and you won't be able to create accounts with a name very similar to that of an existing user. Should you find yourself running into these limits frequently, please request the accountcreator permission at my talk page or over at WP:RPE. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stifle. Tim meh ! 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Alarm GA Review Request

Hey there, saw you did super quick GA review on No Line on the Horizon. If you have some more time, could you do the same for Silent Alarm? It's been nominated for a month now and we've been waiting to get a review so we can then push on and maybe make it into a FA. It's a pretty solid article even if I say so myself. I'd appreciate your super-quick thoroughness. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be happy to review it for you. I can't guarantee I'll finish tonight, but I'll definitely have my decision up by tomorrow. Tim meh ! 23:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, very fast :D Hope to see you about. GARDEN 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was no problem. I enjoyed reading a very well-written article and helping out with it. Good luck getting it to FA, and I hope to see you around as well. Tim meh ! 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Thanks Timmy. Sorry about that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Captain Jack"

Hello there! I have responded to your concerns, and have a few questions of my own, so feel free to respond when you have the time. :) Thank you very much for the review! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thank you so much for the review. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 72.240.212.138

Hi, this is 72.240.212.138, and I know I REALLY shouldn't be on your page but I would like to appologize about bothering you about the whole soapbox thing.--72.240.212.138 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. You weren't bothering me; I just happened to see it on the Linkin Park talk page. Tim meh ! 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, sorry about the whole soapbox thing. I didn't know you couldn't advertize.--72.240.212.138 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic metalcore

Melodic metal core does not exist. The melodic prefix is descriptive, not defining, it is not a separate genre. If you continue to revert it, it could be considered vandalism.

Please ignore that commentary. This vandal along with 82.109.239.210 pushes their POV by removing sourced content. Melodic metalcore has been discused before, for more info see Talk:Metalcore. --Kmaster (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.S.

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For taking the time to review both No Line on the Horizon and War Tour and, not only leaving feedback on what needs to be addressed, but actually going in there and cleaning it up while you are reviewing; a valued copyedit that is much appreciated by those writing the articles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) Tim meh ! 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War Tour GA

Thanks very much for doing this review! However, I think you neglected to add the article to the WP:GA page. I was looking there because it appears that this is the first concert tour article to make either GA or FA. Indeed, I'm not even sure if it should go in the "Music businesses and events" or "Recordings, compositions and performances" subsection on that page, as a tour is some of both. I think I would vote for the former, since that subsection is less crowded and since Glastonbury Festival is there, which is somewhat related to a tour. And thanks again ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was no problem; I enjoyed reading, fixing, and promoting the article. As for WP:GA, I didn't even know there was such a list of GA articles that needed to be updated all the time. I believe either subsection would be fine to put War Tour under, although your reasoning makes me believe the first would be more appropriate. Anyway, I now need to add the previous articles I promoted to GA status to that list. Tim meh ! 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added War Tour to the subsection you suggested, as that seems to be the most appropriate place for it to be. Tim meh ! 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. FYI, there's also a Wikipedia:Good articles/recent page at which you can add new GA articles. But the list is limited in size and articles go on and off it pretty quickly, so it's nothing major if it isn't done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Thanks

Thanks for warning me.--72.240.212.138 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About what? Tim meh ! 00:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures

While I may agree with the closure, I note on the guideline page that you have linked that a "no consensus" closure is not listed as an option for a non-admin closure. And overwhelming "keep" seems to be the requirement.

As I said, I don't necessarily have issues with the closure determination itself, but just curious in general if this should be considered appropriate, and if so, should we update that guideline? - jc37 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would not close controversial AFDs as a non-admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the reason it is preferred that non-admins not close controversial AFDs. Thanks for the advice. Although the page Jc37 linked is actually not a guideline or policy, I'll abide by it and only close non-controversial keep AFDs, as to not cause any unwanted problems. Thanks again. Tim meh ! 01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce

I just put up a proposal for a taskforce to wikiprojetc rock music, its gonna be centered around Three Days Grace, plz write it here if your interested,Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Three Days Grace.Peace Out -Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2000

were is the consensus for not adding Ralph Nader to the infobox?

Ben1111au

See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Ralph_Nader here. Nader would not even have been included before the election. There is no evidence to suggest he had any significant impact on the election, and he didn't get any electoral votes. Tim meh ! 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble tea!

-down load | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!