Talk:George Nozuka

Sources

The AfD and deletion review mentioned sources, but I'm not seeing any sources here. Someone please add sources that indicate this article satisfies WP:MUSIC - or it's likely to be re-listed for deletion. Rklawton 03:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC doesn't require that the article have certain sources. That's simply not what it says. While some links would be useful, it's not a criterion. If it gets relisted, then the AFD and DRV will just get dug back up. The AFD and DRV are linked from the talk page, so unless someone is too reckless about AFD to do due diligence, it won't get relisted. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The DRV seemed to revolve around the reliability of the article's sources. Rklawton 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the DRV ultimately revolved around the lack of consensus in the AFD debate. Do you have something against this artist? You've managed to misrepresent what's written in WP:MUSIC as well as in the AFD and DRV discussions. For some reason, one person suggested that the websites of legitimate Canadian news organizations were not WP:RS. I think Canadians would find that a pretty far-fetched notion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the world of musicians, surely not all can be notable. A musician with a single album produced by a label with only one record and only one promotional tour really looks like a musician who is just starting out on his career – and not one sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Rklawton 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to take that argument to Wikipedia_talk:Notability (music). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GEORGE IS IN LOVE WITH COURTNEY!!!! HE IS NOT ALOUD TO MARRY ANYONE UNTIL I AM OLD ENOUGH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.36.28 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - Can somebody actually look into the "Kevin Bacon is his uncle" thing? It doesn't seem very credible. (March 13, 2007)

I think that Kevin Bacon really is his Uncle, whats wrong with that? Thats not something to lie about, I mean who would lie about something like that when that seems very immature and a stupid thing to do.

There's a reference for it; nobody's lying!Dr-ring-ding 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GeorgeNozuka.jpg

Image:GeorgeNozuka.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Images recently added

I added three images provided by George Nozuka. I will leave it to other editors to determine which, if any, should be in the info box, and to determine the placement of the other two. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Nozuka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023185712/http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/culture/story.html?id=729ef0a5-50c3-41bc-adb6-fc25fed2e141&k=46936 to http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/culture/story.html?id=729ef0a5-50c3-41bc-adb6-fc25fed2e141&k=46936

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

caucasian

hello The last FM source says he is of Caucasian descent. This means his ancestors are from the Caucasus region, not that they are white. When using this term in a genealogical sense, Caucasian always refers to being from the Caucasus, no exceptions, not even in U.S. English. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to MarnetteD for understanding. If anybody knows of other articles that says this then please let me know. also thanks MarnetteD for your understanding about the correct terminology. Also heads up, some pages aren't showing all of the edit history. Fore instance, I saw Marnette's undo o fmy edit, but did not see where they changed it back. maybe this might be a firefox problem, or my screen-reader messing up yet again. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

update: Used Internet Explorer to check, and everything showed fine, it was firefox. What happened is that I did not see what the 18:32, 26 May 2019 edit was, but I saw its summary, and thought it was the previous 18:31, 26 May 2019 edit. Just a heads up to other firefox users that also use JAWS, this happens from time to tmie. thanks. 199.101.62.225 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)