User talk:Triggy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Triggy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:02, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears

Thanks for all your reverts, wikifying, and cleaning up on the Britney Spears article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] singlebox

I have recently noticed that you have removed the singlebox and the prettytable used in the Britney Spears's singles articles. Any apparent reason? It's just seems like you have reverted... -- WB 23:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the only reason I did that is because I thought that you might not do it for every Britney singles page. It would've been "messed up" if it had only been done to some of them, so I reverted back to the original. If you did it for all the Britney Spears singles pages though, there would be no problem. - Triggy

Does it really matter if I did it for one of not? No offense, I worked for quite a long time editting those. You shouldn't just revert back because it doesn't look all the same. There are variations everywhere in Wikipedia. Many of the albums still don't even have the standard album infobox. Obviously I cannot do all of them at once. Instead of reverting, you could have started using the single infobox on other singles. Single infobox is now getting used in quite a lot of articles, and there isn't really anything wrong with it. Plus, I also added prettytable to make the chart infos look better. Not that I need "my edit" to be around, how is it "messed up" if it's not on every page? There are thousands of registered and unregistered editors working on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone will continue applying the easier to edit infoboxes. Reverting back to the table form is just like rejecting the better version. WB 02:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Glowby.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Glowby.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, for a list of copyright tags, that you can use. If you created this/these image(s) yourself, you can use the {{PD-self}} tag. Thank you.∞Who ?¿? 07:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Simpson

Please take a look at the Jessica Simpson article. There has been a recent onslaught of vandalism to the page by anonymous editors and one of my reverts may have rolled back some of your edits. If this is the case, please add them back in and accept my apologies. Hall Monitor 16:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mariah carey Discography

Hi, Ive noticed that you have been changing the sales figures in Carey's discography. Could you please state a source for the figures you put? Also, If you are changing the sales figures, could you please make sure that you alter The US and Worldwide total at the bottom of the list so that it corresponds with the edited info. Journalist 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I personally cannot; However, can you cite, either? What I CAN source is the fact that The Remixes has NOT yet been certified platinum by the RIAA in the US. All one needs to do is go to www.riaa.com to see that much. About the worldwide sales, I can only make estimates. But come on, 3 million copies of The Remixes sold worldwide? You can't tell me that doesn't seem a bit farfetch'd. From what I've deducted using the '2.99' method for figuring worldwide sales, The Remixes has very likely sold less than 1 million copies worldwide. The "~750,000" was simply an estimate. Triggy 03:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Duff sales figures

As is suggested by our established Wikipedia guidelines, would you please WP:CITE source(s) for your edits when changing sales and charts figures? Thank you. Hall Monitor 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)\

Done. Triggy 22:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:SpearsRm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SpearsRm.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Could you add a tag to let us know its copyright status? (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much.

[edit] Wikipedia style & links

Why are you reverting my corrections to Wiki-links and Wikipedia style? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice that there's a certain pattern about the chronology of Miss Spears' singles pages. There is a section for information about the song, video and then charts. I feel that it is easier to have these sections, rather than one unorganized article. I wasn't in any way trying to destroy your version; the prettytable is a great addition! Triggy 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here: the way that individual articles look (and their accordance with the the Manual of style), and the decision of editors to make set of articles follow the same pattern. I don't think that the former simply overrides the latter, but I do think that consistency of style shouldn't completely override the former either. In this case, for example, having a separate section of only a couple of lines makes the article look scrappy (and goes against what the MoS has to say about sections). If the section were longer, it would be fine, of course, so the solution is to find more to say...

In any case, as well as replacing the section, you also reverted all my edits that corrected links and brought titles and headings into line with the MoS — that should be avoided whatever you think of my argument above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest you reconsider using terms like "unfotunately" when describing the chart success of the singles articles you've been working on. That's considered POV when you're writing with a evident bias favoring the artist. --Madchester 21:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't stop reverting legitimate changes to Wikiepdia MoS style and the correction Wikilinks, I shall have you blocked for vandalism. I don't intend to let this get out of hand as it ahs with OmegaWikiepdia and Ultimate Star Wars Freak. I am currently preparing an RfC against them; I don't want to include you, but I shall if you insist on this behaviour. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Triggy, the mOs style says you're fine. "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article." OmegaWikipedia 17:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

Triggy, I'm all for including singles when it comes to single chronologies, but is including "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" a bit too much? The most it got to be being a single was when iTunes offered it as a download. It did pretty well for a download, but thats about it. OmegaWikipedia 01:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. I didn't create that page, someone else did. I think that Megamix page should go, too. I mean, someone even created a page about a Phillipines-only release... I don't think things need to go that far. Triggy 03:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Megamix page is Ok, because it actually had a video and there were some alternative versions. But yeah, that page for "That's Where You Take Me" is even worse than the other two. Any idea on how to handle it? Just unlink them or what? And no offense to whoever created the page either: Maybe there could be some section on the obscure singles (seperated from the main chronology?) OmegaWikipedia 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I took them out, but the person who created them, Kageorge, insists on putting them back. There was a similar situation occuring a few days ago with the two versions of the "Overprotected" single; I messaged him/her about it, but they didn't respond... I think that unlinking the pages is easiest, though. Triggy 03:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Born to Make You Happy

Why do you insist on making the change that you do to the chronology? You offer no edit suummary, just a false "minor". Moreover, you also insist on capitalising the "to" in the title of the song, which is not only wrong, but inconsistent with the title of the article and every other instance of the title. Please think before you edit. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your reply only mentions the change to the chronology; I take it that you agree with and apologise for the other matters?

As for the chronology, I'm in no position to agree or disagree, but you gave no explanation for your changes, and your other edits didn't inspire confidence. I've checked it with User:Ultimate Star Wars Freak, though, who seems to know what he's talking about in these matters, and he explained that this single was in fact released in December 1999; I've thus made the requisite changes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JessicaSimpson.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:JessicaSimpson.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›

[edit] Image:JessicaSimpson2.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you have uploaded, Image:JessicaSimpson2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Newlyweds.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Newlyweds.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Toxic (single)

Why have you weighed in on the side of the refuseniks? The question of the charts has been discussed, with three editors (mainly Hoary and Wyss, with me on the sidelines) giving reasons why it's a good idea to have a single table, and a couple of editors offering no arguments except that they don't like the look of it (and that it's confusing... though why, they can't say). In fact it's just the usual business on these articles of a couple of editors wanting things to stay just as they originaly did them. If you have reasons that they don't, on the other hand, perhaps you could join in the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Refuseniks? First of all, Mel stop twisting the facts. FYI, I've been talking to someone about the matter, and he has been very reasonable unlike you, but he hasnt responded in awhile. And second of all, most people prefer this chart. Me, Drippingink, USWF, Winnermario, and even two random IPs keep reverting to this version, but Mel seems to think this his opinion alone outweighs others. OmegaWikipedia 12:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The anon. IPs are almost certainly one of the mentioned editors; I haven't seen anything from DrippingInk, and the reverts have either been unexplained or with the absurd edit summary "reverting vandalism". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it, I'm afraid. The U.S. charts are clearly marked "U.S.", thus distinguishable; why do the charts need to be in sparate tables? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Lindsay Lohan

Please cite your sources so that others can verify your work.
Please provide edit summaries when you submit edits. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britney images

Hi if it is obvious the image you upload is a screenshot of a video add film-screenshot (with pointy brackets {{ }} round it) on the image description or just select the movie or TV screenshot from the dropdown list when you upload, also are you going to do anything with this Image:BritCrystal.jpg as it doesn't link to anything it might get deleted. Thanks Arnie587 18:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HolidaySingle.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:HolidaySingle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Chaotic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chaotic.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Nv8200p (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Minor" edits

The rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that an edit of a page that consists of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". Marking a real change (such as altering the chart position of a single in a chart table) as a minor edit is considered bad behaviour. See Wikipedia:Minor edit. Thank you. Also, please cite your sources on the edits you made to the Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan articles. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just remember to add those sources to the references sections at the bottom of articles. That way, we have a source to look back to. Thanks once again. Extraordinary Machine 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Triggy

Do you have AIM or MSN or something? I have a question about some of those Britney images. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 14:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combined charts

There's a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion resulted in the adoption of a new Music Wikiproject page on tables; this includes the decision tables should not be split. Please stop reverting editors' attempts to bring articles into line with the nes guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britney

FYI, it's confirmed and true that "Spears is currently working on her fifth studio album titled The Original Doll, the album is scheduled to be release in Spring 2006." so I don't think it's right to erased that sentence, so stop deleting things because you just want.--Hotwiki 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

what the heck did you put on the discography, no singles chart no album pics that'a really unreasonable, what's ur reason?--Hotwiki 11:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That article has become a ridiculous discography without any effort from you, The only thing you done is all reverting and deleting stuffs which is ridiculous. U made the discography so horrible, discography contains album chart w/ album pic, singles chart, and etc. U found it unnessary bcoz u just want to delete it, Singles chart box are necessary, it summarizes all the singles so u visitors don't have to go in every page just to know the chart positions. And almost all discographies have singles chart box, so there's no reason to delete it whenever u just want. I don't think anyone would agree in ur edits since u just keeping deleting and deleting infos, how horrible to revert a page just because he don't think the guy couldn't do it in all pages. --Hotwiki 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Lohan

Thank you for helping keep this page brief; if I may, however, you're chopping wholesale some information that other editors (myself included) have already deemed encyclopedic. Feel free to discuss. Radio Kirk ^{(talk to me)} 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think my take on the "Music" section is a bit more substantial and relevant; more minor details such as "Rumors" reaching number one on TRL or being nominated for an award belong on either the specific single or album's page. Also, numbers should be written out as "number four," opposed to "#4" if I am not mistaken... Triggy 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must disagree on both substance and relevance; it's not worth mentioning the album or its singles at all without a brief mention of their relative influences, which are encyclopedic, IMHO. (One may as well write nothing more than "Lindsay Lohan has released two albums.") I do agree that some of the other information (since purged) was extraneous, and I've cut it before. Also, you are correct in that "number four" would be technically accurate; however, that holds neither with Wikipedia style nor with Billboard, which uses the number form (without "#", by the way). Radio Kirk ^{(talk to me)} 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears' discography

Please don't call Wikipedia users "followers of Britney". I am not a fan - and Hotwiki is doing a good work on other discographies too. Of course there's much to do at the Britney site - but your version is an extended list of albums - not a discography. A discography lists all releases of an artist - and can give detailed information about chart positions and certifications. You can't expect that other Wikipedia users accept your album list for a discography. It's preferable to correct wrong numbers - and not to start an edit war.

The actual Britney discography is combined with chart tables. If you prefer a cleaner form see Madonna discography. --Red-Blue-White 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears Edit

Why did you revert my edit (the links in the pictures) on the Britney Spears page? 70.53.1.133 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SlaveGrind.jpg

Dude... Its NOT a film, find a better tag. Hol e in the wall 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luna Lovegood's Turnips

This message is being left based upon the assumption that you are still active, although the fact that you have made no contributions sincec August suggests otherwise. The archive records for the Luna Lovegood article indicate that you were responsible for introducing the new HBP data there, at 2:49 on 18/7/2005. In that, you included a reference to her earrings as being turnips. Could you please explain or cite any references to Luna wearing turnips as earrings? Thanks. Michaelsanders 15:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Broken.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Broken.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:MGG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MGG.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/i/User_talk%7ETriggy_cdd4.html"