![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You constantly flame other users, and you put a WP:NPA warning on my page without provocation, and don't sign your posts, at that? You, good sir, are in need of review. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 00:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Neon white;
An IP has reverted your redirection in this article with a summary justification. As I don't know about the theme, I'm telling you about this, so you can do the more appropriate. Regards, Caiaffa (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
take a look on the article.Oren.tal (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
<--c'mon now, common sense is required when using reliable sources. There are more instances of the BBC describing Haaretz as liberal for eg here and here and here and here and here and here just to name a few. In one isolated instance it cites "left wing". so I think it is you who should assume good faith, and accept the fact that this dispute is being fueled by one editor's intransigent POV pushing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to template the regulars, as you did on User talk:Malik Shabazz. Making a personal, specific comment will probably make for a friendlier and more productive atmosphere than using a template that treats the editor as a clueless newbie. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Issuing a 3RR warning to one editor in a content dispute, and not to another (who has reverted at least as often), suggests that your judgment is impaired. As I wrote on the article's Talk page, the source identified by Oren.tal has as much to do with Haaretz as it does with George W. Bush — in other words, it says nothing about Haaretz. As Oren.tal continues to demonstrate, months of trawling the internet for websites that use "Haaretz" and "left wing" produces nothing but garbage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Neon White; I like your words "I live behind a computer and don't advertise myself" and I want to use a them or derive words from. --Puttyschool (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What is this then "Paramore are proving they're part of the competition to other alternative bands out there at the moment." --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm most likely not going to be around tomorrow. Will you keep an eye on User:Tq6993? I believe you are familiar with this user so I'll not elaborate a great deal :). If he deletes sourced content again will you give him a level 4 warning, then report if he still continues. I try to assume good faith, but sometimes it is hard. I think the policies are pretty clear cut, don't you? Some editors just don't get it though, and usually in these situations they never do. I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. I could be, in fact hope I'm wrong though. Anyways, keep an eye out for him/her if you can. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Er, was that an accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikikid (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently re-wrote the Phil Wickham article, and I was hoping you could give it a look. The article was originally not sourced (the only source on the page was not a link to the cited material), and read like a label bio for an artist. I've posted a note in the talk page for the artist, but I was hoping I could get an opinion from an outside party. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you delete the Click house article? I asked another person to do it, but I got no response. It has no sources, it's the same thing as Microhouse, and it's made up. Also, could you fix the release date in the box in Seeing Sounds? Noble12345 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering in what way this article fails WP:MUSIC and should have a redirect. Orfen T • C 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You should make the comment first then after consensus is formed change to redirects. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry, I didn't realize that you were offering a third op on this dispute. Could you remove any dispute that you are working on from the dispute list on WP:3? That way, no one else will come along and interrupt what you're doing, Thanks! :-) fr33kman -s- 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, :-) fr33kman -s- 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort."
You reversed my edit of the List of emo artists list along with several others with a minor edit with a vandalism justification. As the link to the alleged supporting reference was dead, the reference did not satisfy WP:V. While some of the other edits you reversed may have been vandalism, this certainly was not. Please be more careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop undoing my taking Rise Against off the Emo page, they are not an emo band, not even close as it clearly lists all over the internet that they are a punk band. There is no reference anywhere that says they are, especially the one that is linked to them on the emo page, that is a link to fall out boy, weather they can be linked on the same site doesnt mean anything because you can link anyone to any site, it doesnt mean they are the same genre. So please stop switching it back unless you can show a reliable source that says they are an emo bamd which they aren't if you even look on there main page it says no where on it about being emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How can you agree that he is right though, when you just contridicted what he said. He said its not oppinion, then you wrote, "hes write it IS oppinion" that doesn't make sense, but regardless it isnt an oppinion this is a fact. Just because they got mixed up in one article doesnt mean they should forever be linked to that. Try to find that anywhere else and you cant. But what you can find is 8 million places that say they are a punk band, not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You've !voted twice on the page - for Delete and then Delete & redirect - do you want to remove one? Black Kite 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hmm, I removed my speedy tag and redirected to the parent album, per previous discussion. I hope that's OK, even though you just added the ((hangon))? If not let me know please.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
For your recent request, the user had not received a final warning and had not edited since the level three warning. Please do not report users to AIV unless they are currently vandalizing after a final warning. لennavecia 13:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that these band members weren't notable enough to keep their own pages? They seemed to have some amount of information on them, some of them at least. I would have said that Jamie Reynolds or Simon Taylor-Davis should have been kept. Do you think otherwise? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A proposal has been made. --neon white talk 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)"Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument"
Just wanted to say thanks for sticking up for me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck. I must admit I was quite pissed off for getting the article deleted right under my nose just hours after creating it, and I just instinctively thought that this had to be wrong in some way. There is a lot I could have done differently when dealing with this though. Not least since I misdirected some criticism due to poor understanding of the CSD process. I could also have used a different tone when interacting with some of the contributors, but I honestly don't think I was any more uncivil than my adversary, and frankly I think that warning was a bit excessive, but if you disagree and think I was over the top in the whole discussion, could you please tell me, because then I'm obviously in some sort of denial that I need to snap out of.
Oh, and I never got why no-one agreed that his productions as referenced through Discogs was notable, that assertion of notability was basically ignored. Was the labels too small and independent, or are just Discogs not considered reliable? Cheers, Sebisthlm (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. After 5 days expired since you proposed deletion of Rockdetector I deleted the page but Lykantrop contacted me by providing by one or two references to media. You can check my talk page for the whole discussion. Since the page is heavily linked by other pages in Wikipedia I decided to restore the article. If you still believe that the article has to be deleted, I think is better to start to take it for AfD. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why you keep deleting the extra critisicm added on the NME page, it a comment one of the writers amde and I believe it deserves every right to be kept in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.26.142 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have put it under the critiscism section more than once. If I were to make a reference to the issue the writer for the NME said it, and a reply from an angry fan would that be enough to warrant it be added? Because ultimately it is impossible to find a link as they do not publish their issues online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableandy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It was published In the NME magazine, NME writer James McMahon stated in NME june 21st "ska punk is the most wretched music ever conceived." It ended up featuring responses the following issue such as "For that ignorant comment alone Mr James McMahon I could quite happily walk up to you in the street and garrotte you with my old Sublime T-shirt." by a reader named Karl Frome. Surely people writing into the magazine means that people found it controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableandy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, but I think there has been a misunderstanding. Here you write that I have taken my personal attacks to the 3RR board, when all I was trying to do there was defend myself from a patently false charge that I violated 3RR. I don't believe I acted rudely, but if you think I have, I will of course defer to your judgement as an administrator. However, please at least understand why it was necessary for me to defend myself on that board. If someone tells a lie about another person and that other person knows it's a lie and has the evidence to prove that this is indeed the case, wouldn't it then be incumbent upon that other person to set the record straight; to clear his or her name as it were? Causteau (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the James Frey Talk Page, you stated that Amazon should not be used. I was using Amazon for the purpose of citing the three Editorial Reviews (from magazines) not the user/reader reviews. My whole point was that Littlemunk did not present any rationale for using only positive reviews. My argument was that if Amazon chooses to use certain reviews, then there is some reason to believe that those reviews are representative and/or come from prominent/respectable publications. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I have clarified on the article's Talk page. --JamesAM (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I am taking this topic to your talk page as it is going to stray off the main topic at the music notability guidlines. Endorsement Deals, as I explained, are given to many many MANY people. You made the comment "There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product" and that is untrue. You are only looking at a very small part of the whole picture. Of course it also depends on how you define "nobody", in your case you seem to saying anyone who is not of the stature of David Gilmore is a nobody, and that is very much not true either. If Wikipedia allowed an endorsement as one of the allowed criteria you would have swarms of new articles based solely on that. As an example - An author or a writer might sit alone using a pen and it would not make much sense for a "nobody" to be endorsed by a pen company. However a "nobody" musician can be seen by hundreds to thousands of other musicians via websites such as You Tube or Myspace. They can been seen at live shows, local or not, battle of the bands or not, high school or arena. They can be heard on a demo or other recording either for sale at shows or posted on the internet. Any fans or musicians who hear or see the artist might go "Woah! That sound is killer! What are they using?" It is understandable how editors might feel that only "somebody's" are allowed to get endorsement deals but that is not true by any means. It makes perfect business sense for companies to seek out new talent to give their products to. It makes even more sense for a new company to seek out talent to use their products. Clapton, Beck and Hendrix helped to put the Fender Stratocaster on the map but has every person who has ever picked up the same instrument been "Notable"? No. Eddie Van Halen had a Kramer endorsement but did ever other musician who also had one get as much attention? No. Of course it is always easier to get "free stuff" when you are already "famous" but I was not joking when I said that the NAMM trade show is a living, breathing, "advertisement" for endorsement deals. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
←:::Live shows and the internet and two ways people will see, and hear, an artist. Media exposure does not equal "fame" nor does having an endorsement deal. I know Wikipedia discredits "Myspace bands" however the internet has truly changed the way a band can market their selves. "some amount of media coverage" can be found in many places, from a local paper to the local television news to "user submitted" news online. Any of that could be used to find some sort of endorsement deal. You asked "how can you endorese something if nobody knows who you are and the fact your endorsing something?" and I have already tried to answer that but I apologize if I have not been clear. Let me try again to explain. If there was a band who played cover tunes, or was a tribute band, and they played live they would be a band that could be seen. They may not have any albums, "a record certified gold or higher", a "charted hit on any national music chart", any "notable musician", won or been nominated for "a major music award", had music in a film or TV show, had any airplay or "been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network". The band may get some local media coverage, aside from a concert listing. This band may not be known "outside of an immediate circle" yet they still might be able to get an endorsement deal. Why? Because they are a band that is playing live shows, they can be seen. Now if they have a Myspace and Facebook account and videos up on You Tube or Myspace video they may be known "outside of an immediate circle", even a better chance of finding an endorsement deal. But lets go back in time a bit - to the 80's and 90's when metal was huge and "Shredders" were not known "outside of an immediate circle". A label like Shrapnel Records was releasing albums left and right and many of the artists had endorsement deals. Yet "outside of an immediate circle" of GIT students and other guitarists people had never heard of many of these guitarists. But before the reason of "But they had a record out" comes into play there were many local, unsigned, sunset strip hair band who were doing pay to play shows that had endorsement deals. Having an album is not needed. There are bands who have endorsement deals right now who do not have any albums out, nor are they really known "outside of an immediate circle". Bands that have never played outside of their local area and have received little press outside of local media. i will cite one example here, the same example I cited in the main discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy. Here is a bass player who plays with a local band (Fusebox Funk) that has put out their own CD's, financed by their (former) drummer, received local coverage (the band, not the bass player - the cited articles were done before Cary was in the band) played as a local support act and "outside of an immediate circle" is unknown. Yet he has an endorsement deal with Warwick and it can be verified by going to the official warwick website: Cary Jordin bio and Famous US Warwick Players. And you can see an ad slick featuring Cary: Warwick Ad. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but for the record before I made that last edit to The China Probrem I stated my views clearly on the talkpage of the user who was reverting my edits and on the talkpage of the article itself. I was hoping to get him/her and the other users to discuss what they're doing first instead of simply reverting without reason. I'll leave it to the talk page to discuss this to try and get a discussion going with them for now in light of the warning. Alastairward (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I will never contribute to a discussion again, without permission. Thank you for setting me straight. Especially when an article is not NPOV. I realize now that my contributions to various discussions were against the main stream. Next time I see a problem with an article I will keep it to myself and assume that it must have had consensus or it wouldn't be in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't watching Talk:Interactive fiction#Third_Opinion, I think your concerns about the notability of the competition have been addressed by myself and another editor. I would welcome your further thoughts. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input on the AfD on Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery AfD. I am always a little unclear as to what one can and cannot say in an AfD, and the correct Wikiquette so thanks for taking the time to chip in, it is much appreciated. All the best. Paul75 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted some edits on Paramore using Twinkle, and when I filled in the reason for doing so, I accidentally clicked cancel, so unfortunately, there's no edit summary. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)