User talk:Binary TSO/Archive 2

Screamo

Please. Quit playing games with genres. It is one of the least intelligent lame edit wars I have to deal with, and I deal with it on a daily basis. Chubbles (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally, this comes from anonymous IPs, or one-off accounts of twelve-year-olds. But since you appear to be hanging out a little more, I'd like to nip this endless edit-warring in the bud before it makes me go any grayer than I already am. Chubbles (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverstein is Screamo. They even say so on their MySpace. You reverted it back to Post-Hardcore and Emo and called it an "unreliable source." The band themselves don't know what genre they play? Honestly, stop it. --24.1.205.187 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Myspace is not a reliable third party source, ESPECIALLY in regards to genres.--SilverOrion (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverstein OWNS their MySpace. They can choose which genre to be in. Whether or not MySpace is an unreliable source, Silverstein isn't. --71.120.42.206 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the concept of reliable third party sources. The Wiki policy states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"WP:SOURCES. The source that you used is neither reliable nor is it from a third party.--SilverOrion (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of reliable sources that DO say they are Screamo. MySpace was a bad example. But seriously, they ARE screamo. Almost every review I have read about their albums says so. So stop with this lame edit war that you can't win. THANK you. --71.120.42.206 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you'll have to find better sources. Allmusic does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, in fact, their genre descriptions are so inaccurate that several users have attempted to ban it from being used on wikipedia. Forthesound is not reliable either, as it is not a professional review. If you do some research you'll see that it was written by some random user "Julio D.Anata"--SilverOrion (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many sources I give you, you're always going to say it's an "unreliable source" and revert my edits to fit your distorted agenda of Silverstein. 99% of the internet says they are Screamo. And besides, how many "reliable" sources are there on the internet? Not many. Even Wikipedia is becoming more and more unreliable, thanks to people like you. --24.1.205.187 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, you think that I want to do this? If you just learn how to use proper sources then I wouldnt have to remove it. Lastfm is NOT a reliable source and neither is CD universe. Lastfm is a music networking site, NOT a professional review. By the way, I've reported you for using sockpuppets.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So what I use two seperate IP addresses? It doesn't really matter unless if I used it inapropriatly, which I don't think I did. Oh I get it, The 3 Revert Rule. Smart of you tricking a new Wikipedian into getting reported. I don't get it, my edits were in good faith, even if somewhat misguided. Why should I get in trouble for this and what does this have to do with sock puppetry?? --24.1.205.187 (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll thank you to stop playing footsie with the genres. It's unbelievably tiring, and I don't know what gives you the energy to do it. You are not an expert on the meaning of the word "screamo", and your original research as to who is and is not screamo is unacceptable and disruptive. Chubbles (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear what you mean by "butchering". I am attempting to correct a bias in the way certain genres are represented on this website. Chubbles (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. I noticed that you have been doing excellent work reverting vandals, but was a little puzzled that you have not been issuing warnings to the people you have reverted. Since editors may not be reported to WP:AIV until they have been appropriately warned, you may wish to leave warnings when you revert vandals. Thanks for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How to delete page

I have attempted to delete this page - please can you delete it for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Yenal_Dündar

Apparently it may not meet the notability guideline for academics.

Many thanks with best wishes,

Yenal (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Put a {{db-author}} tag on it. I have already tagged the page. nneonneo ^talk 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2

Could you explain why you had tagged the article for fancruft? You might want to ask for a FA review if the problems are significant. In any case, it would be appropriate to say something on the talk page. Kariteh (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance Party USA

Is there really a chance that this new version is a good starting point for getting to an improved article? DMacks (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it on Talk:Dance Party USA. Editor seems to read there so could help him/her get this thing fixed. Also, it's where a consensus could develop about how to fix or if it's too rotten to improve incrementally. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just stubbed the whole thing; it was a G11 and G12 mess, but notable enough that an article should be written, rebuilding from the ground up. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

MySpace links

My explanation is unreasonable? Please see WP:EL, particularly number 10 under Links normally to be avoided. Also, just because other articles do it does not mean it's right. Since we have other links (the official website and the Solid State Records page), there is no need for the MySpace link, as it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Thanks. — ^FatalError 07:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadhana Sargam

I don't understand why SilverOrion tried to edit Sadhana Sargam's page. I don't see any particular interest he has with Indian music or Indian singers yet he wanted to edit the section of A.R. Rahman's compliments to Sargam. I think he does not understand what music is. He should understand that knowing western bands from all over the world alone does not necessarilly make him a qualified person to pass judgement about Indian music or Indian singers especially Sadhana Sargam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.89.25 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page so that it would comply with the quality standards of wikipedia (NPOV). The "compliment" was unsourced and it created an imbalance in view, thus it was removed. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site--SilverOrion (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my talk page. Have a good day, and keep up the good work. Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

True, I bet he will be back though. Hey, just a thought, but have you thought about requesting rollback?

Oh, I didn't know that. Looks like you have been doing a lot of vandal fighting, maybe they would reconsider if you reapplied. It is obvious that you in fact know what constitutes vandalism, and what doesn't. So, I don't see why they wouldn't. What do I know though, :). Landon1980 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of Leonard Horowitz

Perhaps sloppily, I had recently put in boldface some anonymous, unsourced statements that had been added since I last edited this article, and then tagged them for . In all likelihood, these statements came from LGH himself, or someone very close to him; after all, who else but LGH could have known that Da Vid had apologized to LGH for telling a reporter, on the record, that he was "off the deep end"? (If in fact that apology ever happened.)

I had hoped that bolding these changes would make it clear what my tags were actually tagging, and would perhaps more strongly invite our anonymous editor to substantiate some of his assertions. Your removing of the bolding puts the article into a new state of POV ambiguity in this respect -- most readers will see a number of sentences -tagged, but will be much less certain which facts, exactly, require citation. It is beyond doubt, for example, that LGH was a dentist. What isn't independently verifaible anywhere (that I know of) is the claim of 16 years of clinical periodontal surgery experience, which was one of the anonymous additions. I bolded only the latter claim, and fact-tagged it. As you left it, however, we now have an article whose introduction could be construed as questioning whether LGH was ever a dentist! (Which, considering that the article later lists some of his mainstream publications as a dentist, might be considered borderline libelous. That's a real problem when you're doing WP:BLP, which this is.)

In fact, since the article is subject to WP:BLP, I'd be within my rights to simply revert all of the recent anonymous unsourced changes, simply for being unsourced. The article should be cleaned up in other ways, admittedly. In that, we're in agreement. If you'd like to do some serious work on the article, I'd welcome the help.

IMHO, however, de-bolding what I had put in boldface only muddied some issues, rather than contributing to a proper cleanup. For now, I won't revert your changes. But if you don't reply (on my Talk page, please) within a few days, I probably will. At that point, I will probably also revert all of the unsourced recent changes from that one anonymous source (very likely, but not certain, to be LGH himself). For all I know, if you took a look at what the article was like before his changes, you might see one that doesn't require nearly as much cleanup as you thought.

Again: the article does need cleanup. I'll leave it tagged that way, because there's where you're right. The section about references to LGH in popular culture section probably ought to go -- I haven't been able to verify any of LGH's claims in this area. Still, maybe some mention of it is appropriate. Also, much of the background on the Kimberly Bergalis controversy should perhaps be in other relevant articles (which do require work, last I checked). If you have ideas on how those parts could be better, I'd welcome your suggestions and your edits.

But -- please! -- it would really help me if you would first carefully read the Talk page, some of the recent edit history, all of WP:BLP policy, and maybe WP:FRINGE as well, while you're at it, before pitching in. This is not a typical Wikipedia article -- unusually stringent policies apply. Not many editors want to tackle this sort of subject. After you read policy on it, and take a look at what the article looked like before the recent anonymous edits, then really think about the kind of person portrayed here, you might start to understand why it's a repulsive chore. As I think I said during its AfD discussion, improving Leonard Horowitz would be about as much fun as unplugging a stopped-up toilet. And that's what it's been like for me. Not to mention that this toilet has spontaneously overflowed again under the influence of, um, some mysterious force? You want to help? Grab a mop. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of King Seven

A tag has been placed on King Seven requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blehfu (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Catriona Irving

A tag has been placed on Catriona Irving requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. mboverload@ 06:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Catriona Irving

I have nominated Catriona Irving, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catriona Irving. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? H2H (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anberlin - Youtube

I thought i'd avoid another edit war, and come here to ask you reasoning. As far as i can see WP:RS never states youtube is not applicable, reliable or allowed. It is reliable: Coming from his mouth, as true as the other statements. Third-party published source: created by Walmart Soundcheck, as true as any other acceptable interview because it's still straight from their mouth. In fact, this essay states specifically towards youtube as a source: "video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher". The video is clearly authentic, and it's got to be reliable because the information is coming straight from their mouths! Also, it should be noted we can use some common sense here, we don't have to stick to these rules that were created for other areas of WP, if it's coming from the person's mouth, i don't think it matters where it is, it's obviously true - i mean just because absolute punk or some news sites say "stephen christian said it was this" doesn't mean it is more reliable, or true. kiac (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i realized that just after i sent you the message. Any ideas where the original would be posted? It's obviously not from television. *5 minutes later* Found the original here. How do we link that up? It will be dead once Warped finishes (they will more than likely remove it, i would have thought) and it's not a direct link. You reckon we could double link the reference? Or just go with the indirect one? kiac (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ray Reach article

How does one set up "in-line citations"? I can't seem to find a clear description of how to do this. Thanks. Allenstone (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll set up the references properly as soon as I have time. Allenstone (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I just finished setting up all the references in the Ray Reach article as "in-line citations." I must admit, it does look much better. Thanks for your patience in letting me, a Wikipedia novice, learn how things work here. Allenstone (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, SilverOrion! Is it ok to remove the "clean up" notice now? Allenstone (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)