User talk:ScottMHoward/Archive

Conan

Wow, you were quick. Hahaha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.170.173 (talk • contribs) 23:25, September 12, 2011

Truth be told, I went to wiki to verify the pronunciation, but was mystified to find it said zoo-ologist. lol Then I saw it was recently edited. ;) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Evlogo.png and File:EvLogo.svg

{{admin help}} I've just realized that at some point File:EvLogo.svg has replaced File:Evlogo.png. When this change was first initiated, I was opposed to the change since the new logo is inaccurate. There are multiple spacing errors as well as "choppy" curves. I made comments on the creator's talk page in an attempt to discuss these changes before they take effect, but because there was no response, I simply didn't notice the fact that this new image has now replaced the old, more accurate, image. Because of this, the old image has now been deleted due to orphanage. Is there any way the old image can be resurrected and reinstated while a proper SVG can be created/edited (if this is even necessary since it's a fair-use image of a copyrighted logo). Please advise! =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

SVG files are transformed to png files at the required resolution "on the fly" when the page is requested. One cannot compare the raw SVG image with the old png. To compare properly one has to get a bigger image (from the This image rendered as PNG in other sizes section). Choosing 500px, and loading into photoshop to compare with the original png - I see very, very minor diferences, and in places the svg version is fractionally sharper than the png (e.g. the end of the descender of the "S"). Blowing up the png to 500px and overlaying, shows that the letter spacing is about as perfect as once can get, there are marginal differences to the long curves, but that's not helped by resizing the png. I don't see a good reason to alter the status quo. I'll leave up the help, you might get a second opinion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this so thoroughly. My main concern is the spacing around the 2nd E (directly following the downward slash). The entire placement of the slash is too far left and the "approximate" spacing of all letters are close, but just isn't the true logo. I think I'm just too picky. lol I guess the ultimate solution to this "problem" is to find a good SVG editor and learn how to make these minor adjustments myself. Could be fun! =D Thanks again. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who occasionally pretends to play with SVG files, I can tell you that there is no bit of fun messing with those god-forsaken things! Lol. I'll take a look at fixing it when I have the time. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Holding On

What's a gibberish? And why is this edit a gibberish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamsec (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement made is pure opinion and makes no encyclopedic sense. Saying something "could be considered something (even though it isn't)" has absolutely no value at all. The fact is that the song was released from the soundtrack, not the album. No hypothetical situations should be placed in an encyclopedia. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

EV members

[1] See Talk:Evanescence#Will_Science_Hunt_membership. At least two editors have removed "Science" apparently because they think he's no longer part of the band. I don't know where the notion comes from, but it's a new issue, not simply editors thinking the name is a mistaken duplication. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

IRC?

Hey Scott, do you ever use the Wikipedia channels on IRC? Would be good to talk about some issues in the Ev articles in real time, rather than through diffs and time delay. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've rarely done any IRC, actually... But that does sound like a good idea being able to actually CHAT rather than leaving messages. Not that I have any real ideas or anything; I just watch all the edits and check if they make sense or not. Every now and then an edit will spur an idea and I'll go around through the articles to check what's consistent / looks better. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you ever have a mind to get on, just give a time and I'll try to be there. I've always hated time delay conversations, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP

Oh no, I mean you should add yourself in the part Participants, because I renewed the Project. 46.217.63.159 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I knew, the way to become a participant was to simply add the userbox to your userpage. Has this changed, and for what reason? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, why has all of the subpages been removed (or at least the links to them). You're re-inventing the wheel here. You can just make the WP active again, you don't have to recreate it... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made (it appears they resurrected an old version of the project). If you see anything that can be improved on the project pages, by all means do so. It's been sitting fallow for far too long. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Evanescence What You Want single coverart.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Evanescence What You Want single coverart.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Template font size

Disregard

 – Nevermind this request, case closed! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scott, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Can you go to this sandbox and take a screenshot of just the text? Upload it to any image hosting site and reply with a link to it. I'm curious how it'd look. I'm assuming you're on a PC and possibly a different browser than I am (I'm on a Mac using Safari) and I'm curious how the fonts vary. At your leisure. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, tell me which version you prefer (as it appears on your browser). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Evanescence pages

Scott, I don't know if I've said this before, but thank you for working so diligently to protect the Evanescence articles from all the nonsense that's been going on as of late. New job and other real life concerns have significantly curtailed my activities here, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. The Will Hunt thing is especially frustrating, as sources are provided in the article backing up the statement. And, of course, the ongoing genre drama is annoying. In any case, many thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, as always. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive flub

That's why it wasn't working!! Hahahaha, thanks for catching that; I thought "counter = 6" was the issue (and now I'm curious what would happen if I left it at 6). Btw, I'm sort of being sneaky, but the whole thing is just a test, really. I know it'll work, but I just wanted to see MiszaBot create /Archive_1 without me doing it first. I'll remove the auto-archiving code afterwards simply because, 1. a consensus is technically supposed to be reached for auto-archiving anyway (or even archiving, I think), and 2. it doesn't seem to be a very busy talk page at any rate. But I had to pick some talk page with discussions on it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It should automatically create it (and would probably auto-create 6 if the counter was left there =D). I've always had problems starting the auto-archiving for one reason or another... forgetting "Talk" in the archive path usually is my error. I just wonder why MiszaBot never updates Archive logs like the doc says it does... hmm. Glad I could solve an issue. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of awards received by Reba McEntire for deletion

The article List of awards received by Reba McEntire is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. It appears to be an out-of-date list superseded by List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire.--Michaela den (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Copyright

{{helpme}}I want to add an image to my LDRbot userpage. [# The image] is a screenshot of the program I use within my own webpage. Since I created everything contained within this image (the browser has been cropped out of the picture), and I "own" any copyrights contained within the image (nothing is officially registered for copyright or trademark), is it okay to claim this image as "my own work" and freely license it for use on the article listed above? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition: or is it safer to [# crop-out all images and logos] from the picture to show only the description and table? Would that then be less controversial? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't make it "free only for Wikipedia" - you'd have to release it, under appropriate licence, for anyone to use for any purpose (including commercial). As it clearly states it is (c) at the moment, you'd need to address that tricky issue.

I also think it might be problematic, as it kinda "advertizes" scottswebpage.com.

And particularly as it is not a Wikipedia-authorized bot.

To be honest, I don't think it worth the hassles of trying to get the screenshot on that page. Its addition does not really help add to encyclopaedic content - and that's the bottom-line in editorial considerations.

The above is, really, an opinion though. If you think it worth pursuing, I think you're better asking ion Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group, where there are people more expert in these matters. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Encoding?

{{helpme}} I'm trying to develop a bot that will convert any Wikipedia article to the List-Defined References method of sourcing. The only problem I'm having is that when I "fetch" the wikitext from the server, I lose special characters. For example, the Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) article contains sources from Japan with text (一般社団法人 日本レコード協会｜各種統計); however, when getting the wikitext from any of the available raw-data sources (this one, for an easy example), the resulting text becomes (一般社団法人 日本レコード協会｜各種統計). The only way I've successfully been able to get proper symbols is by manually copy/pasting the coding into a user interface and manually click "convert". My server handles all the special characters fine, so it appears to be somehow garbled coming from Wikipedia. Is there some trick to getting the special symbols? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 07:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me - if I open that URL in notepad, I can copy/paste e.g. 一般社団法人 日本レコード協会｜各種統計 - so, it's something in whatever-you-are-reading-it-with, not handling UTF stuff properly. Leaving the helpme here, but...if you can give more info about what system you are using, please do.  Chzz  ►  08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Use UTF-8 character encodings. If you don't know what that is or how to do that, it's time to do some research. --75.142.156.63 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I confirmed that the same file opened with UTF-8 displalys the characters flawlessly. Now my only obstacle is to try and figure out how to get my server to do this. lol

Thanks for the help, the both of you. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Avril Lavigne Mobile Single Cover Art.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Avril Lavigne Mobile Single Cover Art.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant! :D

I saw the IQ thing on your page and took the test myself; do you think there's any chance they purposefully give people higher scores, so they'd be flattered/in a heightened mood and more likely to purchase their "complete profile" thing? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 13:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. I took the test a long time ago and don't really remember what it was like. I've taken a lot of tests over the years, but I just wanted to have something "sourced" other than my random number thrown up there. lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hokay. I got 133 and figured everyone who takes their test might be "gifted". Or maybe it's just us Wikipedians. ;D ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 18:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you mentioned that, I went to another site (intelligencetest.com or something) and scored a 135 there, too. This does seem quite suspicious that two tests taken months apart would deliver identical results. Somethin' fishy... lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you're just very consistently brilliant. ;D I considered taking that same test but giving the answers backwards, so I should get that I'm like mentally challenged or something. I can't stand getting my brain fried twice a day though, so I'll do it later. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 22:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I went back to IQTest.com and answered False to every question just to go through it quick and got a score of 83. Hmm... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a timer, you probably got awarded for the speed. And if a 100 is average and I guess average would be getting like 75% of correct answers, and you probably got circa 50% of correct answers. Hmm what? Makes complete sense. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixing redirects

Per WP:NOTBROKEN it's generally not helpful to "fix" redirects as you did here, particuarly if that is the sole purpose of your edit. PC78 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for my changes are listed underneath WP:NOTBROKEN (which appears to mainly pertain to links, not template calls):

Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template TN1, articles must be searched for T1 and a separate search must be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example). Moreover changes to syntax, corrections, scans and other processes (for example tag dating) must take into account all redirects.

~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)

I am proposing a serious change to the Broadcast section of this article. Please take a look and provide feedback. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

LDR

Hey Scott, out of curiosity, what made you decide to remove the LDR notices from the Ev articles? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been slowly removing them from each article I edit that happens to have one, but now that I was checking all of my watched articles for LDR compliance, I figured I might as well weed those out too. To me, it just seems a nuisance to have such a huge notice at the top of every article when it's just as easy to periodically update non-compliant references to LDR. It appears to not really make a difference if it has the notice or not--people seem to just add references the way they're used to (especially since many editors will click the EDIT section links--where there is no LDR notice anyway). I'm just not really a fan of HTML-notices, especially when they're THAT big. I wasn't really a fan of the notice when I first put it up (copying another article that introduced me to LDR), I was just assuming it was some policy somewhere on the LDR project page and went with it. But over the months, I eyeroll whenever I see one, so I felt it was time to go. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes plenty of sense; I've been mostly absent recently due to various problems, so I didn't know if I'd missed something. :) Also, what is your opinion of List of Evanescence songs? Listcruft and poorly sourced, IMO, and better left to EvanescenceReference. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing that it's just EvanescenceReference meets Wikipedia. Everything notable can be found right in the Discography. I see no need to have a list of every single song ever recorded and performed... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can think of a reason to do something with it, I'm going to redirect it into the discography article. I still need to go through all of Nitefirre's edits...I'm glad they are enthusiastic about editing, but I wish they would not make such significant edits without at least explaining what they did ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much every article has significant changes. At first, I thought that the entire EvanescenceReference site was being copied over here, but started to just assume better. But now that we have this article, I'm not so sure. I'm all for the redirect. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: We Are the Fallen

To be honest, I can't see this as a spin-off group, at least, not by my definition of spin-off. If you feel otherwise, by all means, restore the edit. This was just my interpretation of the guideline. (And while completely irrelevant as to our linking the two or not, I have a feeling neither band would be comfortable as being "related" that way...to me, spin-off implies a degree of good relations, though I'm perhaps biased in this regard.) — Huntster (t @ c) 05:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. It would be like listing Cold as an "Associated Act" to Evanescence just because a member changed bands. Both bands agree that "We Are the Fallen" is not Evanescence and vice versa, so I guess they should be considered separate bands. They're related, for sure, but associated? not so much. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Files you uploaded may be deleted

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot^{(talk/opt out)} 04:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:WAtF Irving Plaza.jpg

en-dashes

Thanks soooooo much for changing those. That was bugging me since the GA process, but due to politics (and just wanting the GA passed), I didn't touch those. A non-breaking en-dash makes zero sense on a header. Okay, also, I'm too tired to read the whole section above this, but I forgot about tagging for merging instead of deletion also. Should Control Room AfD be removed (never too late) and tagged for merging instead? That way it's just over and done with. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to wait out the 7 days. Since it's been proposed for deletion, we can't close it for something other than deletion unless a week's discussion has resulted in that consensus. Honestly, since the article has already been merged to Avril Lavigne discography, I see no reason why the article can't be deleted now. In fact, I think the EPs should be re-nominated for AfD now that they have already been merged as well... unless they can can be speedily-deleted. Having the articles continue to exist only opens the door for someone to simply remove the redirect and we're back to square one. But perhaps we should leave it a redirect unless someone comes by and removes the redirect. Wikipedia policies can be confusing sometimes. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting's fine. I suggested it because I once removed an AfD after making a similar decision, and someone even dropped a note praising me for doing so (I didn't expect that). But I also thought you nom'd it for deletion, but I guess it was someone else. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Live Acoustic (Avril Lavigne EP)

If you wanted them merged, why did you take them to AFD? Deletion ≠ merging. I tagged both for merging, which is what you should've done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking. It's been a long day... I actually have already been in the process of doing the merge--which really consists only of moving the tracklist to the discography page. (post-edit conflict: thanks for the tone, btw) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's okay to list Bubbling Under Hot 100 peaks if the song didn't make the Hot 100 proper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Within WP:USCHART, it specifically lists the Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles as being listed if the single has not been charted under Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, however does not list the Bubbling Under if it has not charted under the Hot 100. However, if the Bubbling Under chart is used, should that not be used as a SEPARATE chart? It does not make logical sense to say that a song charted, for example, at #112 on a chart that only lists 100 songs. If the bubbling under is used, it should be listed in a separate column... yet the MoS does not even say it should be used in the first place. That was my rationale for removing them, as other admins have removed from other articles here and here, for example. Other information outside the actual chart should be included in their respective articles, if they exist. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a silent precedent. For instance, Taylor Swift discography, which is a FL, uses figures of 1xx in the Hot 100 column to represent Bubbling Under peaks for songs that never entered the Hot 100 proper (for instance, a song that got to #2 on Bubbling Under is listed as 102). It's also a common industry shorthand; Mike Curb uses 1xx figures for Bubbling Under peaks on his official list of every charted single in Curb Records' history, and the various Joel Whitburn books use 1xx figures for Bubbling Under peaks. I have no idea why anyone would think to remove them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The FL you provide as an example contradicts itself in a way. It provides the Bubbling Under information for "American Girl" as a footnote below the chart while having a dash in the Hot 100 location within the chart, which is what I would expect and prefer. However, below it follows a sort of "compromise" format. It lists songs (such as "I'm Only Me When I'm with You") within the Hot 100 list as well as explaining the addition in a footnote. The idea of having footnotes to describe that the songs didn't actually chart in the Hot 100 list satisfies my complaint of providing false/confusing information, but your example fails to show if the "proper" method is to actually place a misleading (to some) number within the actual chart or to let the footnote explain its proper position. With that said, I am taking this one song (out of 6 listed) to be a fluke as opposed to a contradiction of style. Or maybe it really has been a long day and I don't know where I even saw that "error." ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already replied on this issue at TPH's talk page, but suffice it to say that I agree with Scott. There's an old saying here, that just because another article does it, doesn't make it right even if that article is FA. Of course, I think the FA process is a joke, but that's another issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hunster. I've decided on a comprimise. Since some prefer it to not be listed at all, and some (apparently insistent) that it remains, I used the footnote method on the Avril Lavigne discography. Getting into an edit war with another user over something that is admittedly an unwritten rule (and thus, not policy), isn't exactly what I feel like doing at the moment. So this should suffice. (And what's with the cute otters? lol) - Got it. Editnotice. lol I like that one--"What did I do now?" ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is SFC18 contested?

Trying to set up a page for SFC18 who is a known London artist. Not sure why I can't add a page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfc18 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. You may want to add a notation to your own talk page with the template {{adminhelp}} and ask an administrator what the problem is. It might possibly be because you are trying to create an article with the same name as your username. But I have no idea, I don't see any protections on the name. Good luck. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Amy Lee book cover

Hmm, I think that edit refers to this book cover, but I can't tell if it is a fake mock-up or a Turkey-specific version of the book cover. Those Turkish Evanescence fans are a bit wild... — Huntster (t @ c) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Check that, apparently it *is* the official Turkish language title, per the author's website. I'd be surprised if that were an authorised usage of Lee's image. Oh well, still not notable, in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. So it was just lazy sourcing. Instead of citing the specific page (I did click around the site, but apparently left out that particular page), they just cited the entire website. I agree about it not being notable, though. When I added "...fails BLP Verifiability" in the edit summary, I was going to add "and Notability" but the edit summary was getting kindof long. lol Thanks for finding the appropriate source, though.. in case it should happen to come up again and I don't make myself look like a fool. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Sorry for leaving all the Evanescence crap to you over the last few days...I needed to get away. Also, I've stolen your talk page notice message. I abhor the talkback templates :) — Huntster (t @ c) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all yours... but beware, it apparently doesn't really work all the time. ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I wonder if there's some kind of automated script folks use to place those? If so, I need to find it and nuke it. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate if there IS a script like that out there that would clutter up so many talk pages. I hope you DO find it and CAN nuke it. lol BTW, I "stole" your editnotice that you stole from me. lol You worded it better. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wildlife of Brazil

I've removed your speedy on this. If you look at the page history it should be obvious that this is a long article with a recent bad edit that broke the syntax, not a short fragment for speedying. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake. While editing references, I run into a LOT of new articles that are simply just gibberish so I mark them as speedy. Normally, I look at the history first to confirm that there's really only been ONE creation edit. For some reason, this one slipped. Thanks again! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Scott Thanks for amending my addition to the Linsday Duncan page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Duncan I was in a right pickle! Much appreciated. Cheerio Steve Unloveablesteve (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. This article was flagged in the AWBC category, but while I was fixing it, I saw the title had already been added. But I figured since I already had the video page open, I'd change the title to the actual video title for you. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Hello, I see you recently had some sort of reference problem with User:YellowMonkey, where you tried to clean up broken or bad refs on an article which that user had worked on and s/he reverted it. I know you're sometimes chasing down ref errors like I am (you told me so on my talk page!). What I have done, if I can identify what user has added ref-names that have no sources (using the history comparison), is to leave them a talk-page note if I can't figure out what it is, asking them to make the repair. And if it hasn't been dealt with in a week then I remove the offending ref. I figured it was less contentious. (except for anons. Screw 'em if they can't be bothered to log in.) Cheers! - Salamurai (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started a new tactic on articles which have the same ref name added in multiple locations throughout the article. This shows they really DO want to use some reference there but simply didn't add the info. I've added <!-- Please fill in this reference --> to one of the ref tags so at least it doesn't error and any editor can clearly see that something needs to be put there. I then add a section to the talk page with:

References " " and " " in this article have been filled with <!-- Please fill in this reference --> since there appears to be no general clues as to what these references should contain, resulting in the removal of this article from the broken references category. To the editors of this article, please fill in these references with relevant information at your earliest convenience.

I hope this works... Thanks for all the help and advice. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a better solution, and easier than trying to figure out who's to "blame". - Salamurai (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your integrity (take two lol!)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For keeping articles in tip-top shape, for always adding some of the most relevant edits to articles and well thought-out responses on talk pages that I've seen, and for being a downright trusted editor, I award you this Barnstar of Integrity. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on Wikipedia as frequently, but I see your name pop up on my watchlist continuously, and I wanted you to know I greatly appreciate your work on Wikipedia. By the way, apologies for the earlier "new section" and quick removal, I accidentally hit the return key and I had no idea I would be swept along to the land of "Save Page" lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks! I got a bit worried for a minute there when I saw a section titled "Your Integrity" being removed with so many exclamation marks commanding me to ignore it! I thought I'd find some insults or something. lol After thinking about it for a little while (I really did try to ignore it), I couldn't help but take a peek. =D

Thank you for the barnstar. Each and every barnstar means a lot. It shows I'm definitely not wasting my time editing Wikipedia. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that in your edit history as well. I was like, "Way to go, Ker, waaaay tooo goooo" and your edit history totally looked like, "I'm now going to lecture you on your integrity, nah I better remove this", but I laughed out loud right now when you had the same reaction. Anyway, you're most welcome! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Avril lavigne forbidden rose poster.jpg

Hi Scott, am I missing something? I added a film poster fur when I uploaded the image, and you've added a second fur to the image. One should be removed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am unaware of the copyright rules for posters and where you can and can't use them. I saw that the poster was removed from the Avril Lavigne article because of "fair use" (with no other explanation) so I took that to mean that there was no fair use rationale for the post to be used in that aritlce--and there wasn't. Any copyrighted image that claims fair use must have a fair use rationale for EVERY article which uses the image. Since the image was being used on the fragrance's article AND the Avril Lavigne article, a FUR must be listed for both articles.

However, I now see that the image is no longer posted on the Avril Lavigne article, so Hunster was correct in removing the unused FUR. May I ask why the post cannot be displayed within the Avril Lavigne article? Is it because it is not used for critical commentary and only used as an illustration of her entrepreneurship? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Scott, sorry for the late response. I'm going to have to brush up on the fair use guidelines here, but in general, yes, the image should have never been added (by Esteban hallo (talk · contribs)). Most specifically, from WP:NFC#UUI, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" — but there was no commentary on the image anyway, just that the fragrance exists. Hope that helps! Addendum: I was trying to find the correct "incorrect" spelling of Esteban's name and saw you replied on the talk page and the matter was already cleared up. I'll respond over there as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

lol Yeah, I replied here first before noticing that there was a topic as well over at the AL article. I was going to add a note saying (disregard my personal talk page message), but thought "nah, this'll be more fun". lol Thanks for all the info! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference Errors - Admin Help

{{adminhelp}} So during downtime, I've been fixing reference errors found in categories such as this one. Usually it's pretty easy. Just search the history, find the reference information that was deleted, and add it back in, solving the reference error. That is not the case with YellowMonkey. There are countless articles which I have encountered where he will add a "REF NAME=text" tag to numerous places in an article without defining the reference anywhere, resulting in a "No text provided" error in multiple places on the article (this one, for exampmle). If I make an edit to remove the useless REF tags, restoring the article to an error-free article, the edit is then reverted. In SOME few cases, this reversion is only done so that, I assume, it brings it to his attention and he edits the REF tags with proper reference information. But in MOST cases, the REF tags are simply left as they are, resulting in multiple errors to continuously show up. I've tried communicating with this user on some of the [articles], but the information is simply REMOVED (which I believe is vandalism to remove another contributor's comments from an article's talk page). So I've tried communicating on the user's talk page here, to try to find out some better way of fixing the reference errors so they don't flag within the categories, but also brings them to his attention. Yet I am ignored there as well. I've never encountered such a stubborn admin on Wikipedia who refuses to discuss such an ongoing issue. Here I am trying to tidy up Wikipedia and I get my edits removed and ignored. What is my next move?! Thanks for any advice... ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see you've raised the issue at his talk page; that was the next obvious step. He seems to have gone offline, so I'd give him a day or so to reply. If he hasn't done so by tomorrow, and he continues to reinsert bad references, it may be worth opening a discussion at WP:AN/I or a WP:RFC/U (personally, I'd try the former, first -- ask for a couple of admin opinions).

Technically, I think you're right, and malformed references should be removed. It's valid to challenge such statements, and a reference should be produced to answer the challenge. You could try commenting them out, rather than deleting them, so that they could be easily restored if the actual reference were to be listed. It's probably also worthwhile to continue to leave a short note on the article's talk page explaining the situation. Shimeru 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it time, watch what happens, and go from there. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sherine Tadros

Thanks for this. The section copyright notice I added messed up the reference display, so I though I'd move them up temporarily so that readers can still view the references while the copyright issue is sorted. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly, when I saw your edit "not sure why this was removed?" I was ready to leave a message on your talk page saying "I have no idea why I removed it, either. Good catch." But then I remembered why. But as it turns out, because there is a reference within the copyvio, it flags for an error--after the reflist template is called, there cannot be any more ref tags in the article. To solve this, I re-instated the reflist following the copyvio and flagged the ref as group=copyvio so that it CAN use a separate reflist.

...This was confusing! lol ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your effort on this. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hello

Im writing for Eskisehirspor page. I know that my correction was not ok about reference list. But the previous one I mean reflist doesnt work at all and also humiliating of Chairman of club with Flintstone which is cartoon character on TV.. I would be appreciated if you could help to change it.. see you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraslan71 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed any of the errors you've pointed out. If you have any other problems, let me know. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Halestorm

Hello, I've made a couple of comments at Talk:Halestorm that you might find interesting. I'm not sure if the individual band members and singles are notable enough yet for separate articles. However, the band article could surely use more participation. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replied. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref-fixin' speed-demon

Ahhh hahahaha...I saw your quick drive-by fix on Tree shaping (thank you, my sleepy omission) and thought, hmmm, haven't seen him around here before...scanned your contribs and thought...geez, that is one productive editor...not a bot? Wow. Who is this guy? Found your userpage, noting links at bottom for when you are bored. That's extremely helpful and a great idea. You must be bored. Can I steal use it please? Have a great day Scott. Duff (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC) oooh. On second look, can I also steal use and customize your contriblinks box template? That is also very cool. Geez you're helpful. Duff (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You may use whatever you wish. Yes, I was severely bored earlier. lol Thanks for stopping by. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Duff (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Cite Error?

{{helpme}}I've been bored lately and have been doing random maintenance, but I can't for the life of me figure out why Ansel Adams is appearing on Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. There are no CITE ERROR messages anywhere on the page, nor are there any recent edits with an ill-formated ref tag. Any insight? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably one of the templates on the page was changed to have a broken ref, and then fixed. When something like that happens, the category listing no longer appears on the article page, but the article appears on the category page. This persists until the task of fixing it gets to the front of the job queue, or until it's fixed with a null edit (which I have just done). Algebraist 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the FAQ.  Chzz  ►  16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I found that FAQ, but it only suggested a purge of the page (which I tried.. to both). Anyway, the problem has been resolved, so no matter. Thanks. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Genres o_o

Me again, back to annoy you ask you something...the IP editter 200.8.161.36 has added a load of genres to Avril articles. Discogs has a seperate STYLE and GENRES section. The style section includes Punk and Grunge music. Avril might have these styles but certainly does not play within these genres. I suspect the editter might be an Avril fan wanting her to look edgy and 'cool'...not quite a sock-puppet but certainly not a neutral editter. Anyway, my point - I was wondering what I should do? I've already removed the source once and explained that the STYLES and GENRES are seperate however all the editter did was re-add them. I don't want to start an edit war o_o Thank you, yet again. Zylo1994 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is communicate. Editwarring is tough, but most of the time it can be solved by simply talking to the user causing the disruption. Leave a message on their Talk page explaining the differences of music genre and personal style and that you'll be more than happy to add their sources to the proper location (if it so fits). Remember that we were all new to wikipedia once. Always assume good faith. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I need to stop thinking the worst of everybody :/ Anyway, thanks for your help yet again! Zylo1994 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"References gave me nightmares"

Sorry about giving you nightmares, Scott. I didn't realise that you weren't supposed to have refs as part of the actual table...I suppose it was just my super-organised side taking control lol. I'm still pretty new to wikipedia so I tend to use other Avril articles as templates when I edit and I was just wondering why it IS okay to have a seperate 'refs' column in the chart table for Alice but NOT okay for Let Go or UMS? Thanks! Zylo1994 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to sound a bit like rambling because I don't have much time this morning, but "Refs" shouldn't be used there, either. I haven't really looked for any specific Wikipedia policy restricting the use of a separate column to contain references, but I can't imagine it's condoned. It does make the table look more organized, but a data table should be for data only. Just as I'm opposed to review boxes having (ref) next to a review site. There's a reason there's a "References" section at the bottom of the page. All references should be exclusively listed there by using footnotes [#] directly following the information being referenced. Looking at the Alice article, for example, the release history section has references listed all the way to the right. But what are the references for? the specific formats? the dates? the countries? the labels?

Anyway, the way I look at it is that every article should look "normal" by removing all [#] footnotes. If you remove all of the [#] footnotes from these charts, an empty column appears, showing its uselessness. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To present/onward

I finally got around to starting a discussion about the date range issue, and I'm curious as to what the responses will be. If you're interested in chiming in or simply following along, the discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22.E2.80.93present.22_in_article_body – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Music Barnstar

		The Music Barnstar
		For your excellent work with developing the Bury Me Alive and We Are the Fallen articles, I hereby award you the Music Barnstar. Royalbroil 06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I came to see if there was an article on the band to find out more about them (as a Wikipedia consumer) only to find something so well developed/referenced. Great job and your efforts are appreciated! Royalbroil 06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Glad to see my work is appreciated! (Not that I can take ALL the credit, of course) =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy moly...

Talk about operating on the same wavelength...your edit summary for this edit is the *exact* same as what I wrote when I tried to revert that edit. I thought my edit went through, but you submitted yours a few seconds before I did. That's just creepy.... — Huntster (t @ c) 03:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally hear ya. Same exact thing happened to me when trying to revert Call Me When You're Sober by the same editor. It looks like when I was editing one, you were editing the other and vice versa. lol I actually went and pulled the single I own off my shelf to see where those numbers came from and couldn't find anything at all like that! ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne discography

I noticed your reverted my edits. I have to say that there was a discussion and he didn't come out with a good reason to remove the Japanese chart from the table. You agreed with me. The problem is with that user who don't accept other opinions. Decodet (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made further notation at the talk page of the discography article. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:We Are the Fallen Bury Me Alive.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:We Are the Fallen Bury Me Alive.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

Thanks for the heads up. I should have looked in the MoS first rather than outside grammar sources. Rklawton (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:We-Are-The-Fallen-cover-8285.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:We-Are-The-Fallen-cover-8285.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar ^_^

		The Editor's Barnstar
		We all appreciate the hard work you put into the Avril Lavigne articles, particularly the merging and deleting. Thank you very much! ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! My first one ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics

Thanks for reverting those lyrics earlier. They are unquestionably copyright violations, so if you see lyrics anywhere, outside of a line that is used to explain song context or whatnot, get rid of 'em. If I haven't said this before, let me say it now: thanks so much for helping maintain these articles in a clear-headed and intelligent fashion. That's something that is often lacking around these parts, especially considering the multitudes of fans that want to add stuff (which is fine!) but don't understand the whole purpose of this website. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to take the time to respond to my lyrics "question"--something I've never encountered on Wikipedia before. It seemed to only make sense that since the artists wrote the song and produced it that they would hold a copyright which is certainly not for free display. I've only been on Wikipedia a short time and for you to say such kind words means a lot. Sometimes when editing (and mostly while reverting) I wonder, "is this really the right thing to do or will it be reverted?" I am unsure if the edits I am making are productive to the article. You've given me more confidence in the previous months. I have a great respect for you since you are clearly the top contributor to the Evanescence articles and I've been very impressed from the start on how clear and organized they all are. Thanks again, Huntster. See you around the Wiki! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 05:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Website display

I'm just curious, especially because I've been seeing several editors doing this, but why would you change "Evanescence.com" to "www.Evanescence.com" (as you did here), when the former is a perfectly valid link to their website and is much more visually pleasing? — Huntster (t @ c) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The infobox doc has the standard format as "www.example.com" and the Official link at the bottom of the page was directed to www.ev.com so I followed that pattern as well. Also, as you mentioned, most other pages have the www. on there as well. Most of the time the reasoning is because when visiting the domain without the "www." subdomain, it redirects to it with the "www." anyway. Apparently this is not the case with the Evanescence website (as I have just verified). I was really just looking for consistency, though. Since the Ev pages all had "www." listed, I kept it consistent by making the infobox the same. I agree that Evanescence.com looks better. However, all official channels such as their official twitter page (as well as Amy Lee's official twitter page), the official youtube page, and even the WindUp records website links to "www.Evanescence.com". I believe that we should follow suit. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. For most any modern website, the "www" is almost completely redundant, and I personally loath such things, but it really makes no difference for our purposes here. The infobox doc makes no sense to me with that "standard", since IIRC http:// and https:// could technically direct viewers to two different websites, so why not require that part as well? Feels like over-standardisation. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just figure consistency throughout Evanescence is best. If that's how they advertise themselves, I guess that's how we should. On the subject of "www", I agree that it's completely redundant. The only reason it exists seems to be out of habit. lol It even sounds stupid on radio or TV when people are advertising their sites "Go to double-you double-you double-you dot ..." Got a studder, pal? I dunno. It sorta goes with my want to use metric in the united states... but we know THAT will probably never change as a standard either. ah, well. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 22:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Why oh why can't we just switch to metric? I'm not sure what you mean by "advertise"? You mean how the site is presented by the group in other media? I don't really understand how that is relevant to how it should be displayed by anyone else, but all that's irrelevant! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Photos

{{helpme}} I am looking to add a photo of the band We Are the Fallen to their article. I've seen many different Flickr photos being used in various areas of Wikipedia and I'm wondering how I know if a photo from Flickr is fair to use here on Wikipedia. The picture I am considering using is located here, but I have never submitted an image to Wikipedia before and am unsure of the process and/or the copyright of such photos. Would this be a valid photo to use? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a help page at the Wikimedia Commons, a sister project of Wikipedia, called Commons:Flickr. This may help. If you require any further assistance, please join the editors on IRC by clicking here. Please insure you join the "#wikipedia-en-help." This is the default channel. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was able to find the copyright information on the picture using the article you suggested. Guess I'll have to keep on searching for a useable one! =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you need any more help, just drop a line. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving/Merging articles

{{helpme}} I currently have three articles (Tear the World Down, Bury Me Alive and Without You) in my userspace as sandbox articles being developed until they are ready to be added to the general namespace. The question I have is what will be the best method of doing that since those pages already have redirect placeholders? I could easily just copy/paste the entire article being worked on in my sandbox to the new, existing article, but since I am allowing these sandbox articles to be a collaborative effort, the new article would only reflect my ONE edit including all of the updated information. Can a MOVE article work for existing articles so that both histories would simply merge together? Or is there some special request you have to make to merge two articles together? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The redirects don't seem to have any useful edit histories, so merging the histories is not necessary (it's possible, but I think it requires an experienced admin). You should request the moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Svick (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

The following will be removed once an answer has been given: {{adminhelp}} Is it possible to merge the history of an IP address (74.71.120.213) with my history? I know there's only a few edits done with that IP, but I'd just like to have ALL of my history on my one username. Possible? Thanks! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think with some crude hacking and stuff it might be possible, but no, not really. Probably just say you edited with whatever IP on your userpage.  fetchcomms☛ 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, it's not possible to merge edits like this. You can leave a note on your talk page to mention that you've previously edited from that address. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, no biggie. Like I said, it was only a couple edits. Was just wondering, really. ;) Thanks for the help. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 01:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)