User talk:Livelikemusic/Talk Page Archive 12

"Vandalism"

This was not vandalism. Could you explain the warning you left here, please? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the situation, it appears that the user has repeatedly added info without sourcing. This is against policy and frustrating, yes, but not vandalism. Be careful throwing that word (and any related warning templates) around. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: While your comment above is what I was just to point out to you, I am not a new user and shouldn't be told by another user of equal-stature to be "careful" of throwing the word and template around, given my years on Wikipedia. They've been blocked prior for their behaviour concerning the same edits, and have been warned by other editors, and said-user continues to persist in the information, without providing any kind of legitimate information. While I do believe your intentions were in good faith, it was a bit off-putting and felt offensive of you to come to my talk page and post this. Good day to you, and hope you have a happy new year. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you were new. I was simply reminding you that "vandalism" is defined as intentionally disruptive, unconstructive editing. The editor in question's behavior is misguided and problematic, but does not constitute vandalism. I felt it important to leave this notice so that you don't go around calling other users' misguided edits vandalism when they are not so, as it can discourage editor retention. I was only asking in good faith why you left the warning you did - I did not force you to respond or suggest that you "have to". I believe there must have been a major misunderstanding for you to take offense to anything I said. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: As always, this is the internet, where emotion is of subject to those who read it. It isn't emotive, such as face-to-face contact could be. Sorry if such statements came off in such a way. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Greatest Hits: Decade Number 1

I reverted your edit, because it's causing the tracklist to say that Mark Bright composed the tracks. He didn't compose them, he only produced them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Oh, I see. I apologise, it was my mistake. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anders Hove (actor)

Hi. Why is he not notable and Kin Shriner is? Kin's page is horrible and much shorter than the page I created for Hove. I realize that this is my first attempt writing a page for Wikipedia. I added more references. I added more in in the personal life section. Also I see that on Kin's page, his time on General Hospital is mentioned sort of the way I had Hove's. Anders did more than just 1990 on General Hospital.I think he is notable enough and has been acting since 1984. If he is not notable enough, then maybe Kin is not either? I'm just curious is all and want to make this page better if he is notable enough. Thanks. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976: Comparing articles is not something you should do; just because one page does ABC does not mean page two should have ABC, as well. I merely tagged a new article that failed to meet the notability standards in terms of sources for biographies of living persons. It had nothing to do with it being your first article, or with it being created by you. You may believe an actor is notable, but you need to prove such in verification and sources. And, at the time I viewed the article, it did not. Eight sources are better than what was there, however, be caution: Angelfire is not a reliable source, and numbers nine and under must be written out per the manual of style. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you! That made my day. I feel much better about it. You make valid points. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976: Anytime. You did a fantastic job on the article, especially making the reliable source improvements. There's still more work that could be done, but it's definitely off to a solid jumpstart. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So what I need to do is list each one separately, is what I think I get out of this as why I can't do it the way I had it. I thought I could since the soap page was like that, though I guess soaps are different from filmography. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reporting to AIV

Hello

In future, if you raise a report to AIV regarding someone you think is a sock, could you please link to the sockmaster? Otherwise we have no way of knowing who the sockmaster is and whether or not we can help or whether this has to go to SPI. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Okay, Sorry! My apologies, I will keep in mind in the future. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User 79.82.14.195

Hi there! I thought that after I showed him or her the consensus talks regarding soap breaks less than 12 months, he or she would stop. I just assumed that he/she/they didn't know since the infobox template hasn't been updated since those talks happened and they would stop after I showed them but... They clearly haven't given their Phyllis Summers edits that you (rightly) reverted. If you were to report them for vandalism, I certainly wouldn't be opposed (not that you need my permission, I'm just saying). Anyhow, have a good day.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Piece By Piece Artwork

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded the same quality of file that I have uploaded earlier, may I know what the problem with the revision by me? Because both files that I uploaded and the one you uploaded later are of the same size (42kb), type (.png) and dimension (300x300). Thanks. :) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Syfuel: Slight difference in RGB colour. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: If you don't mind, can you share the name of the program that you're using so that in the future I can use the same one as yours? SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hi Livelikemusic,

How are you? Longtime-no-talk. What do you think of soaps right now? I was just wondering why exactly you reverted my work on Maura West and Michelle Stafford? You said it per guidelines, the awards can not be shown however it saids ″[Notes] is to include optional, additional information such as medium, episode titles, or awards″. The reason why I removed the table in the first place, is that the table was way too confusing for what I believe readers would not understand. Also, even though it says the notes should not be overly cluttered IMO, it is not anyway cluttered. Thank you! I hope I dont sound rude, I just want some clarification! Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@SoapFan12: It says it should be avoided if an awards table is there; if an awards table is present (which does not looked cluttered; it's very suited and cleaner that way), then it should be excluded from the filmography table. The awards section is not confusing to read, as it isn't over-run with detail, which is what would happen to the filmography section and information box. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok! Thank you! I see what you mean! I was wondering if I could have your opinion on something, do you believe that the different awards should be one table like the one with Maura West or there should be different sections for each award like the one with Michelle Stafford?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Max A. George

Sorry I let your message on my talk page slip. It seems like the two of you have benefited from backing off and taking a break from that page. But, eventually, one or both of you will go back to it. I was unable to determine what, exactly, it is that you want to decide. Can you be specific about your areas of conflict? Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A cold one downstairs!

Look at us working together... wikipedia gods must be laughing their butts off! ;-)Cebr1979 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Let's just say, I'm not the asshole I was projecting, and I openly apologize for that. Time does the soul (and mind) good. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing lately. I'm sure we'll bump heads again (I mean really let's just be honest here - lol) but, I'll come at you much more respectably in the future. Have a good one and happy editing! I apologise as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: That's a given, passion comes into play when it comes to editing, even I can forwardly admit such; but it's about acting in a mutual respect of fellow editors, and putting a positive foot forward and all. And thank you; apology accepted! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Now... how would I privately e-mail someone? Say I had something to ask you?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't, btw, I've just never known how to do it. ;-)Cebr1979 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Some have it as an option on the side page of their user space, some don't. Depends if they allow e-mails to be sent to them. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense! Thank you!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Was gonna cheers with the beer photo but, no clue if you drink or not so... How 'bout a cookie instead! ;-) Cebr1979 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Christina Agulera

It looks more appropriate the way I put it. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: It is not about being appropriate ACase (and using the word "I" shows slight ownership of an article), it's about what's proper, true and verifiable. And what's verifiable is that Christina never left the series; she merely took hiatuses, but never formally departed the series. Also, your edits are in violation of the website's policy on years. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How else am I supposed to refer to the edits I made? The way Me put it? That sounds horrible. I am Sorry. --ACase0000 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@ACase0000: It is in the way you word what you're saying; it comes strongly off as ownership of an article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am Sorry, who think that. I am sorry I bothered Sir/Ma'am. I am sorry I even tried to help out. :( --ACase0000 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hartley Sawyer as Kyle Jenkins (2013).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hartley Sawyer as Kyle Jenkins (2013).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thorne Forrester

Hey, an IP removed a huge chunk of storylines from Thorne's article and I was unsure about if they should be added back or what should be added back really. I know Liam's page needs more work, but the removal there seemed far too drastic, focused on past events and no longer made sense in parts. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: I will take a look at it; thank you for the heads up! I hope you're doing well, and enjoying The Bold and the Beautiful. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I undid the removal from Liam's article and condensed the storyline a bit more myself. I'm great, thanks. Hope you are too. I'm loving B&B at the moment, especially all the drama at Forrester Creations! Did you see the UK are getting a dedicated YouTube channel to watch the show [1]? - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Yes, I did read about that this morning! Congratulations, I only wish the U.S. would get international soaps in the same treatment in terms of broadcasting! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I love B&B so much more for this: [2]. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: Yeah, that's very nice of them to do that tribute, especially of Ashleigh! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If Thorsten Kaye wants to join Neighbours, then I'm all for it. I'd like to think he'd be quite the rival for Paul Robinson! - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I haven't been able to watch Neighbours, though I always have wanted to watch both Aussie and British soaps. I don't know if you know this, but ARENA launched a competition to find an Aussie actor to star in Days of Our Lives for a limited run storyline. What do you think of that? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see that. If they cast someone I know, then I might have to tune in. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they would be portraying a doctor, currently in a residency alongside Dr. Daniel Jonas (Shawn Christian). It's a limited week run for only a few weeks, maybe four to six. Also, given your involvement with soaps, I thought I'd point out some discussions happening at the talk page for {{Infobox soap character}} if you're interested! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll have to keep an eye out for who they cast now. I'll check out those discussions too, thanks! - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember

Where have you asked me to leave you alone? While we're at it, please explain how your reverting on Little Mix is not edit warring. I'll admit I'm not familiar with the history, but "DTTR" and "stop harassing me" does not communicate the reassurance that I'm seeking. Can you help me understand? Tiderolls 13:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: That part of the edit-summary was not meant to be included, so I apologise for that; I hadn't realized it'd been included until you just brought it to my attention this instance. It's part of an auto summary, and I believed myself to have removed that from a past summary I used. The only part that was meant to be used was: "Do not template regulars". And in terms of point #4, I believed the edits in question are blatant vandalism, as they are the only continued edits the user has continued to make for nearly one-month's time, and they have been warned about content-blanking prior, and yet they continued to remove without any reasons as to why the content in question is being removed. I have not been the only user to revert their edits, either. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I'm not seeing the deletions as vandalism. The inclusion of the content has not been supported by sources; additionally, you've only today opted to post to the article's talk page. I applaud your present course but the other editor's deletion of the content is not evidence of vandalism by itself. For myself, I apologize for the template; it was simply laziness on my part and not any particular judgement of your abilities as an editor. Tiderolls 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: The only reason I see said-edits as vandalism is because they are the only continued edits this user makes. And per {{infobox musical artist}}'s associated acts parameter, it states: "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together", Little Mix toured with both Demi Lovato and Cher Lloyd, which establishes their connection as associated acts; the only one in-question is that of Missy Elliott, since they've only collaborated for one single release, which they never performed live together. Therefore, Lovato and Lloyd's removal is unexplained, and therefore does constitute vandalism to the naked eye. And again, I apologise for the edit summary confusion, was not something I intended on doing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the content deletion, by itself, does not constitute vandalism. It may be frustrating and it may be disruptive, but you must be very careful how you employ the term "vandalism". By misusing the term you increase the probabilities that you will not accomplish your desired result. Establish a consensus for your version of the content and you can establish a pattern of disruption on the part of the other editor. That disruption and their continued silence when warned or requested to explain their actions will greatly improve the chances that action will be taken. Tiderolls 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Well, I opened a talkpage discussion, so if they do revert and remove information again, isn't that them going against Wikipedia's consensus guidelines? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it does reinforce the case for disruption. If you could source the collaboration of the artists I would be convinced that removal was disruptive. Tiderolls 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Little Mix opened for Lovato's Neon Lights Tour, which Lloyd was also apart of, as reported by Billboard in September 2013. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please incorporate that into the infobox. It would make my decision very easy. Now I'm off to YouTube. I've never heard Little Mix's music. I appreciate your help on these articles. Tiderolls 14:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: I will format it properly and put it into the infobox now; you should look up their music, it's quite catchy! They've got some beautiful voices! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Realness

Hi, I saw you blanked Realness twice, rightly sourcing it to be a failure of the albums guidelines, could you possible help me out and tell me what I need to do so that it meets requirements to be an article? I'm pretty new here so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, :) Azealia911 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I actually did not blank the page, what I did was create a redirect to the main RuPaul page because the album failed per the notability of albums on Wikipedia. While I understand your intentions were in good faith of creating the article, it did have several issues, such as a lack of reliable sources and failures per some policies on the website and {{Infobox album}} that required fixing. One source to Billboard and a repeated source from the iTunes Store (which could've been given a ref name) does not constitute a notable album on the website. I also recommend looking at how to proper cite your sources, as Wikipedia doesn't really approve of adding bare URL's as sources. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Hi, I'm just working through your issues on Realness, and there's a couple I don't quite understand. What does "This article is outdated." mean? and "This article has an unclear citation style." too. I'm just a bit stumped at how to fix them considering I'm not sure what's being asked of me haha. Any help appreciated, Azealia911 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

You didn't have to really. Just another days work. Luxure Σ 03:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Luxure: You didn't have to revert the edit; most would've left it. It's nice knowing there are kind-hearted people out there in the world. The barnstar was most deserved! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassie Newman

The edit history wouldn't let me fit enough to explain it all but, to continue from there: I know she's not the show anymore but, she is still a fictional character. If the opening sentence should say that she's not on the show anymore, it would need to be said as, "is a fictional character previously on the Young and the Restless." To change it to "was a fictional character" would mean she has since somehow become real because she's not fictional anymore. I'm a HUGE grammar, spelling, and punctuation guy. It annoys all my friends too. ;-) Cebr1979 (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: No, it should remain "is a fictional character on The Young and the Restless, because the opening paragraphs(s) are to remain in a present-progressive form, especially since fictional characters cannot die or be a former existing, it's fiction. You would not include "previously on", because again, it remains in a present tense formation. Also, I've noticed slight edit-conflict on the Cassie page, and unfortunately, Arre is right; one calendar year is January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 is one calendar year, as an example. So, you'd need to not have it as "1997–2010" as she did not appear in 2008. Saying she appeared from 1997 to 2010 would be false information, since the character was not there in 2008. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So why'd you change it to "was a fictional character" then?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I just double-checked and I'm not mistaken. It was your mistake and I was just telling you why I fixed it.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: (edit conflict) I do not recall changing it to "Was a fictional character", and if I did, it was an unintentional change to the article. Last edit I remember making was removing the period point from the caption, which did not belong. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya, you did. You can see it right here. You're not even the one that removed the period from the caption, I did. You can see that right here.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Again, I'm not denying it; I'm telling you, it was not intentional. I might've been on an older edit of the page, and not realized it. Again, it was not intentional to change the tense of the opening statement. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't wanna fight with you...

...but please don't tell me I need to be the bigger person when it comes to that other one. This conversation was a HUGE attempt at being the bigger person with her but, even though there was nothing in my post that warranted a response like hers, she responded with a few sentences that include two digs. I've tried being the bigger person, my only option now is to give back what I get. If she's going to give a dig (which she has done in every post), I'm going to have to respond in kind. It's all that's left to do.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm heading out for dinner. Have a great night.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Again, given your history together, maybe it's best you two not interact for a while because you shouldn't be hitting below-the-belt with name-calling. Name-calling and making personal attacks is not welcomed on Wikipedia, and that alone is baiting another editor to retaliate and continue their own actions; it's a double-edged sword of bullshit, that personally, I'm over and makes editing on Wikipedia not so fun to do. You two don't have to like each other, but there has to be civility, which there isn't, and that just makes everything so much more disappointing to see. For me, that's bullying and as someone who's been bullied, I can't sit by and watch it happen. We're adults and we should be acting in such a manner; both sides are wrong in this instance, and I'm over the fighting. I deal with it in my offline life, and I don't want to deal with it when I'm online. And when I came to a talk page I've been pinged to and see adults acting in a manner that isn't professional, I'm over it and it makes me not even want to respond and ignore it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)