User talk:NrDg/Archive 090731

---

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

---

Archives:

070625-070920-071102-071231

080101-080131-080229-080331-080429-080531-080630-080731-080831-080930-081031-081130-081231

090101-090131-090228-090331-090430-090531-090630-090731-090831

Adding a sound file

Hey, I'm terribly sorry for bothering you again, but I have the sound files of "Let's Do This" and "Let's Get Crazy"... they are both saved as "m4a" as downloaded from iTunes. And I want to know how I can edit these to make them 30 second clips of the songs to post them on their song articles. How do I solve this problem? Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files for basic instructions on how to do what you want to do. You might find short samples already in the required format. --NrDg 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I guess I have to download one of those programs. Where can I find those short samples already in the required format?

Sometimes music sale sites have short 30 second samples of songs that may be usable. --NrDg 17:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the samples you can hear before a purchase, like in Amazon.com or iTunes? And how could I download that?

That is what I meant. I don't know how to download them myself as I haven't had a need. I am sure there is a way - I just haven't looked into how to do it. --NrDg 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you anyways. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio broadcasts as sources

Thank you. I have another question: if something is brodcasted on the radio, would that be a reliable source? Of course mentioning day, date, time, and place (radio station). --Ipodnano05 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the radio station and what it broadcasts. For interviews of an article subject see {{cite interview}} for what is needed for interviews. For other stuff need to look at it in a case to case basis and look at whether or not the station and program on that station meet reliable source requirements. A gossip talk show, for instance, it unlikely to be usable. In general I would discourage using radio stations as sources as it is hard for others to verify what you report they said and unless people known and trust you personally as an editor may not believe you if they can't interdependently verify. Best to have easier to verify sources. --NrDg 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I want to do is put the things that Miley Cyrus says tommorrow in the Planet Premiere of Hannah Montana 3 to add it to the background section of Hannah Montana 3. Would that be acceptable? --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be OK if properly cited. Best would be to find a web link to a transcript of the interview for verification purposes. Cite the interview and link to the transcript would be best. --NrDg 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you for everything. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Season3concertphoto.jpg

An editor has pointed to deleteing a file I uploaded, File:Season3concertphoto.jpg... even though it is in Flickr and all teh info on it has been verified and clarified. In o ther pictures that are under this licensecing has template saying {{flickrreview|admistrator|date}}. I was wondering if you could verify everything and leave the template on the file's page. Thanks. Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This image looks to be a screencap from the music video that was broadcast on Disney Channel. The flickr uploader likely thought that making a screencap gave them ownership but it doesn't. Since the uploader does not own the copyright, the release on flickr is invalid. Flickr is a good place to get images but it gets suspicious when a low resolution professional looking picture is uploaded there. Flickr does not do any checks on copyright and only removes stuff if and when the copyright holder complains. --NrDg 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana Episode

For the "He Could Be The One" episode descriptions (both part 1 & 2), if someone changes it at all, can you change it back to: Miley tries to tell Robby that she is dating Jake Ryan again, but he then believes that she is hiding something from him. Miley then tries to make her dad be thankful for Jake, and she pretends to date his bad boy band mate Jesse, until her dad tries to make Miley listen to her heart.? There's no reason for them to add something that's not in the refernce (or ruin it for other people). I'll be gone next week, so I can't keep reverting it back, so could you help out? - Alec2011 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free Images

Sorry to bother you, I need your help with non-free images. I posted two pictures on Hannah Montana 3 that were on Flickr.com from the concert taping in Irvine. Editors left messages on my talk page that the image might not be unfree. I need your help to know what I need to do because I mimmiced everything on other images that are under the Creative Commons licensing. Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong other than trusting the flickr uploader. Please don't take the image deletions personally, this is totally about the flickr uploader, not you. The flickr uploader lied and claimed he took the pictures that were proven to have been taken by a Disney photographer for promo purposes. The flickr release was therefore invalid, the images are a copyright violation and were deleted as such. See here for the discussion and the detailed reasons. --NrDg 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Knowing this information, I uploaded the pictures under a different copyright tag, under a screenshot from the music video. I think that would be more acceptable and non-free images (as long as they are in the correct copyright tag) are not under such a strict policy. And again, thank you. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have a quick question. When an image is larger than a section in the article, sometimes the lines separating the photo overlap and sometimes they don't. Can you explain to me what the difference is that makes that, because on "Let's Do This" it is overlapping and I cannot get that out. Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me on my browser. If you don't want that to happen put {{clear}} at the end of the section. --NrDg 21:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I mean that the line is overlapping the picture and I want the picture to overlap the line. Like in "It's All Right Here" and "Let's Get Crazy". --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any line overlapping the picture. I don't understand the problem as I can't see any difference. Page display is the responsibility of the web browser - I'm using Firefox on Vista x64. --NrDg 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That might be it... i have vista but im not using Firefox right now. I am going to open it right now. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I got on Firefox and there is no problem there. But for regular internet explorer there is a line overlapping the picture, how do I get rid of that?. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with IE either. I have no idea on how to fix a problem I can't replicate. Sorry. --NrDg 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Spectacular 2

Spectacular 2 is not a hoax. My searches have shown that there is talk of it like this source for instance. Joe Chill (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll let the PROD run its course. Editor has history of factually corrupting articles and none of the actors listed in the article have any confirmation of being in that film. Stuff I found on web are not reliable sources and look to be speculation. --NrDg 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LinKlARIKMF

Yes, I was just about to drop a line to you; seemed to be blatantly obviously to me (at least) that it was Alexcas back again - (I have a couple of pages on my watchlist because of Alex) - but I was just checking that he had edited enough of the usual Alexcas targets before going to SSP. Thanks. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

69.112.43.77 vandal

It's been a while since I've monitored him, but it seems that after blocking his main IP (69.112.43.77), and then his secondary IP (24.187.254.242), he started doing most his vandalism from school (170.161.64.10). It's mixed in with a few vandal edits from other people, but the vast majority of the contributions matches his pattern. Now the blocks have expired, and the vandalism has intensified, but it doesn't seem like other editors are catching everything. Could you give all three IPs extended blocks? There have been no positive edits coming from the school IP. Dancter (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the first IP. Can't justify blocks on the other two right now as no recent activity. We should both watch for resumption on the other two because of the block on the first. --NrDg 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You made the right call. After I posted this, I noticed that there hadn't been any activity on the school IP in over a month, and that he actually didn't resume on the one IP. These aren't the only IPs he uses, but they're the only ones I've seen him return to after a long stretch. If I'm not actively following him, it's much more difficult to catch and clean up everything, because the most obvious sign, creating talk pages for non-existent articles, disappears after a while. I don't even know if he still does that sort of thing. Anyway, thanks for the help. Dancter (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Angel Locsin's revision history

Looks like our good friend Gerald is back on his feet again, eh? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of speedies

I'm sure that you will recognize these blatant hoaxes, and I'm not so sure about other admins. Jazmine Alyssa and Katie Nicole are imaginary Cheetah Girls.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moot. Accounting4Taste got them.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Hi, sorry for the information I added to Selena Gomez's article which was apparently false. I didn't watch the episode so I didn't know. I just drew a conclusion from what I saw on IMDb. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Usually IMDb is right for credits on broadcast episodes but I think the person adding the credits on IMDb didn't understand that the 3 part crossover was really 3 separate episodes, not one long one. I did check the actual episode credits to make sure, none of the Wizards cast was credited in the Hannah episode. --NrDg 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:GuiltyPleasure.jpg

Howdy. Can you revert the latest addition made by Shego123, per WP:NFCC. You may want to add a {{fairusereduce}} tag too, if you'd be so kind. Best would be if you could re-size the image to be less. GIMP would do it. There are other sorts of image editing software. Do you have any? I'd do it myself but am restricted to upload files. 67.81.127.90 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 67.81.127.90:80 (port 80)

Looks like it has been taken care of. --NrDg 01:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I'm wondering if you're interested to be a trainee clerk at WP:SPI? I would gladly be the one to assist you when you may need it. Could you enable your e-mail too? Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I am happy with my current level of involvement in the project. --NrDg 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, someone is adding Vandalism to the Nick Jonas article and will not stop; they keep adding information with gossip magazine as a source. I'm not sure if it's one person or several. I think someone should check it out.--Tweetsabird (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did check it out and I commented at Talk:Nick Jonas. Please continue discussion there. Some personal interest magazines do meet the requirements of WP:RS so don't assume they are all unusable. --NrDg 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are no help at all.--Tweetsabird (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an edit conflict about choices of what should be in an article, not a WP:BLP issue. Proper venue for resolution is in the article discussion page. Please be careful about ownership of article, Edit warring and Tendentious editing. --NrDg 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you 'block' me, I'm looking out for the celebrities best interest, until the celebrity confirms something (themself) you should not add things to their article. --Tweetsabird (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then make a convincing argument to the other editors about your position. You have started a discussion on the talk page. If you do get blocked you will be unable to contribute to the article at all. Please don't let it get to that point and try to work with the other editors to resolve this. --NrDg 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously the same person with different accounts, why should I be the one trying to 'convince' them that Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip site.--Tweetsabird (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication to me that there is any recent sockpuppetry going on and I did a quick scan for that. Of course see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zach Benjamin who is currently editing under a bit of probation as GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk · contribs). There are other editors though and some that will probably agree with your position. --NrDg 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moises Arias.

Where do you suggest finding his age? I believe he is 15. I noticed you think IMDb is unrealiable. The IP address that kept adding David Henrie's age was correct even though it was unsourced before you got a source. Let's see if it's the same with Moises. - Zhang He (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that IMDb is unreliable for bio info as all the info is added by "users like you" to quote IMDb. Other info on IMDb may be usable but this has gotten lots of debate. Bio stuff, however, is pretty well established to not be reliable. For lots of background see WP:Citing IMDb and WT:Citing IMDb. We have been looking for a source for Arias' age for quite some time now. The fact that Disney Channel Medianet does not mention it when they do mention birth dates for lots of other actors sort of indicates that the info has not been published. Talk:Moises Arias has some discussion on this issue as well. You may wish to contribute to the discussion there.

It is not a matter of whether or not something is true or not, but whether we have a reliable source that we can verify. To quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I am pretty sure that his age is what you added, I found a source that stated that and it too was removed as not being reliable. --NrDg 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a reliable source? Isn't it Moises Arias' official website? - Zhang He (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a fansite and not an official site run by Moises Arias. Owner is listed as "Jessica" (scroll down a bit) and site info leads to http://disneystarsnetwork.com/. I doubt that they have any contact at all with Arias. See Talk:Moises Arias#Moises Arias Web is a fan site for previous discussion about this source. --NrDg 22:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)