User talk:Undead warrior/Archive 1

AfD

Name	Type	Status
Xenophilia (band)	wp:music	Deleted
Juan Sarquis	wp:music	Deleted
Evil Behind You	wp:music	Deleted
Barokai	wp:notability	Deleted
Ygorl	wp:fiction	Merged to Slaad
She'll Be Right Records	wp:corp	Merged to Jody Lloyd
Šiptar	wp:notability	Deleted
Yuo	wp:notability	Deleted
Christian Rausch	wp:bio	Deleted
Desmond Fannin	wp:bio	Deleted
Chin Jin	wp:bio	Merged to Federation for a Democratic China
Freed (name)	wp:notability	Deleted
Con Tinta	wp:notablility	Deleted
Inez Cain	wp:bio	Deleted
Hakka-Pac	wp:music	Deleted
Bookovsky	wp:music	Deleted
POLICEPAY	wp:notability	Deleted
Winecad	wp:notability	Deleted
Beowulf (Los Angeles band)	wp:music	Deleted
Thruport	wp:web	Deleted
AdJuggler	wp:web	Deleted

If you want something deleted, make a list of it here. I like to delete things. Make a list and keep it organized.

• Thruport
• AdJuggler
• Corporate Punishment Records WP:CORP - im now officialy, from this moment onwards on a wikibreak... cya later —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template Suggestions

I make templates. I like to do that. It passes the time. So, if you want me to make one you can tell me here. Make a list of them. DO NOT make it look crappy. I want it neat and organized.

• Venom Created
• Watain Created
• Deathspell Omega
• Graveland - This one might have too many red links, also might offend your sensibilities. Dunno, do you listen to them (him)?

My talk

If you make an edit/comment on this page, please sign your name. Also, do NOT edit my userpage without my permission first. I hate it when people delete and add things.

Hi, to start with, it's not a good idea to blank your user page, especially when you have removed non-vandalism criticism/comments. Admins are expected to show transparency in what they do, and most only remove outright obscenity/vandalism.

You are doing a good job with the band-tagging, but imho you need to show a wider range of activities - I think RFA would want to see more antivandalism activity, since you don't need to be an admin to tag bands, and more substantive edits to articles would help to demonstrate your skills and judgement as an editor.

For the reasons above, I don't think you would get through if nominated now, but by all means seek a second opinion, I'm no expert on RFA. If you accept what I've said, why not get back to me in, say 3 weeks time, and I'll look again. Jimfbleak 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, those are tasks that do not involve admin powers. If you look at the RFA pages, you will see that you will be put though the mill to justify why you want/need the powers, and basically you will need to show that you are active in sorting vandals, and can deal well with difficult contributors. Jimfbleak 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to tag existing articles on wikipedia as speedy when they are not empty. We have a thing on wikipedia called stubs which we all hope can develop into fuller articles. If you have a problem with an article in future I suggest you take it to afd if you know what this means ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you place a prod tag in it or afd an article in future. Things wuill develop eventually/ Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a shame that some articles take so long to develop ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your message, but I've got to go out this evening and I'm already knackered, so it'll be tomorrow before I can think coherently. Jimfbleak 18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Sir Blofield's user page, he seems to be saying "OK go ahead", or are there still issues there? As I understand it, being a stub is not in itself a reason for deletion, however long it has been there, but the fact that there is a stub tag does not in itself protect an article from speedying if it otherwise meets the criteria. That seems to be what you are saying too, am I right? If this is a live issue, it would help me if you could give specific examples where you believe the other user has behaved inappropriately, and i'll try to mediate. Jimfbleak 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are really only two possibilities for a stub. Either it meets one or more of the CSD criteria, or it doesn't. In the second category would come the thousands of stub species articles generated by a bot this year, which are notable by definition. Assuming that a similar situation doesn't apply, any unsourced or nn stub can be tagged, and I wouldn't normally wait more than 24 hours before deleting. I get the impression that things are quiet at present - if I'm wrong, or if the problem reoccurs, let me know, and I'll see what I can do Jimfbleak 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

I just want to ask that you be a bit more careful in tagging band pages for speedy deletion, or deletion in general. I saw that Cold Water Flat was speedily deleted, and it shouldn't have been; I restored it, but taking a look at your edit history, I think it might be worthwhile to check All Music Guide or run a Google search for reviews before nominating something. It's good to know WP:MUSIC well, too. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AMG isn't great, but it's pretty much the most comprehensive sourcing out there for pop music. What you should be concerned about in deletions is not what the state of the article is, but whether or not the artist meets the criteria for inclusion. If a band has a crappy article but is notable, they need to have the article cleaned up, not deleted. Otherwise, you just end up undoing other people's work, which then needs to be redone; it's very inefficient. Chubbles (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that's true; I've seen that on a bunch of pages I've created. The difference is, AMG doesn't usually write up bios of bands unless they are either noteworthy, or a new band on a well-known label (e.g. pretty much anything signed to Fueled By Ramen gets an AMG writeup before their album even comes out). But a band signed to FBR, pretty much by definition, isn't chump change; they're not a local band looking for press, they're a national band (looking for press), which isn't an uncontroversial speedy deletion topic. Any article that links to an AMG bio should never be speedily deleted, and I hope the admins deny you 100% of the time if you do that. AfD is really the only suitable place for discussing deletion of an article that links to a third-party source like AMG. Chubbles (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, nothing you've said justifies speedily deleting items with cited sources. Nor does it justify speedily deleting the pages of bands that are, actually, notable, even if they have a lame article. Chubbles (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi! Judging from the messages left here and the speedy that you submitted for Featherstone, Staffordshire (diff), it seems that you might be having some issues with speedy deletion tagging. The speedy deletion criteria, which are listed and explained at WP:CSD, are fairly strict, and only cover a limited number of cases. For instance, on the Featherstone, Staffordshire article, you placed {{db|No sources}} while "No sources" isn't actually a valid speedy deletion criteria. I know that the {{db}} tag lets you fill in your own reasons, as you did, but that's more for when an article falls under multiple criteria listed on WP:CSD. If you do find an article that falls under one of those criteria, you can use the criteria-specific tag. For instance, an article that falls under CSD A7 can be tagged with {{db-a7}}, while another one that falls under CSD G11 can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. Using these predefined templates makes speedy tagging much easier and more accurate. Just remember, not every article qualifies for speedy deletion; those that should be deleted but don't can be marked for PROD or AFD. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to Medical devices directive. You have marked this for speedy deletion twice, but it doesn't get anywhere near qualifying for any criteria under WP:CSD. Remember that the idea is to create an encyclopedia, not to prevent people from creating one. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

there was something about a recent article i wrote and its deletion. The article's main purpose is to educate people on the different types of the Emo Sub-Culture, as there are more than just one style of Emo. i didn't know if i should have just edited the original article or create a new one, so I just went with whatever seemed logical at the time. I see your reason for deletion is a good one, and i am prepared to edit the original page to add on this information. it is your choice if you wish to delete the article, and I feel Comfortable either way.--Sorrowx (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrowx (talk • contribs)

Cool Templates!

Can you please show me how I can make my own? I listen to a lot of bands, and I want to put them into boxes with sayings just like you did. When I experimented, some worked, some didn't, but I just left my page as it is. I haven't been able to figure it out, and I need some help. Please respond to me on my talk page as soon as you read this message. Thank you! Dark Executioner (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Thanks, man! My page will be snazzy in no time! Dark Executioner 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

13 Winters

When listing 13 Winters for AfD, you re-listed an old AfD from March by mistake. I fixed this for you by creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 Winters (2nd nomination); if you want, you can state your reasons for deletion there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Sander

Sorry, I did not intend to readd "internet harlot", that was a mistake. But there is no reason to delete the rest. It has been widely reported in the mainstream media. WP is not censored. Nobody of Consequence 15:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It's reported and can stay. This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. Nobody of Consequence 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to her website (which was a dead link anyway). Facts about her life that have been widely reported in the media and part of what made her notable to the media in the first place are encyclopedic. Nobody of Consequence 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did remove her website... someone else put it back in. Anyway... Nobody of Consequence 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The link to zoeyzane.com is not dead, it works fine. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Drought

Help me on drought its out of control! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.30.80 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

About page protection

Hello there. I see you have twice tried to apply a protection template to a page. Please keep in mind that you have to be an admin in order to do that. If you feel a particular page should be protected, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hi. I don't understand why you reverted me because when the template is black all these things lay hidden so I thought I was helping. If you can tell me a valid reason why it was worth it to revert me then I'll lay off from that type of editing. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 17:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you basing it on code length? Did you even check what changed on the left and right upper corners? I decided to make everything white because the black hides the v, d and e and also the [], so I made the font all white. Also, just to warn you, keep on the look out for an ip user that will attack all those black templates and make them "standard". It will probably be one of the next things on his agenda. Btw, thank you for telling me that tba's don't go on the list, I didn't know. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ABC For Kids Video Hits 2

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on ABC For Kids Video Hits 2. The reason is:

about an album, not the artists - isn't covered by CSD A7

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template suggestion

Venom (band) !? surely much better music than immortal (band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

oops, sorry about the sig.. sometimes when i'm in a hurry I forget! lol, I don't listen to Immortal much, but Venom are sort of to Black metal as Slayer is to thrash. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think you had better check the discography for the venom template =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

B.A.D

I fixed it for you. You just needed to add (2nd nomination) to the end, like this: {{subst:afd1|B.A.D (2nd nomination)}} Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, time will tell.. I've had several that have looked like being deleted but get kept after an influx of inclusionist votes =( -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

How is Twinkle not working for you right now? Just wondering. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Work!

Good work on AFDing those articles listed on my talk, saves me some work =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD.

You're welcome. Also, Ai kahn spleek Germahn. Das iss easy. :p Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually really do know a very elementary level of German, and I can tell that you said "if you speak German, what am I saying?" or something to that effect. (I don't understand all the words; I'm inferring that from the words I do understand) I can't understand the second sentence at all. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually really do know a very elementary level of German, and I can tell that you said "if you speak German, what am I saying?" or something to that effect. (I don't understand all the words; I'm inferring that from the words I do understand) I can't understand the second sentence at all. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

goldmine of deletes

most will be per wp:corp = Category:New Zealand record labels , I checked the first three, none of which were notable... there is also an attached list which might have more, but most are duplications-- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

OK, I've been through your contributions, and I'll nom you (may not be today, other things to do first). Good luck. 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's done! You need to agree to nom and start jumping the hurdles here (counted the tildes this time!) Jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have plenty to answer after Jimfbleak (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry if that felt like a "kick in the nuts". Almost nobody has ever passed RfA with only ~1000 edits (give or take however many you had on other accounts/IPs). You do seem to edit in good faith, but the experience just isn't there yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and closed your RfA as "withdrawn by candidate", as per your recent comment.[1] Just make solid contributions to the project, and you should breeze through the next one. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You might want to read User:Dlohcierekim/standards for some idea of what I look for in an RfA nom and RfA in general. (Just my opinion. Other people will have different criteria.) Don't let this get you down. I think you show good potential. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh You might want to space them over the next 3 months and seek an editor review before seeking RfA again. Take time to smell the roses and all. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry dude, I decided not to vote because it was looking fairly obvious which way it was going to me =(, however, you should adjust your preferences so that it wont save the page you're working on until you've added a comment... - I've done it, because i never used to leave a comment =). I think in a couple of months if you go for RFA again, you'll probably get it, I myself have no interest in administration, but power to you! =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy Points

Just a quick note about withdrawal: Yes, random people should never remove AFD tags from articles, BUT the person who nominates an article for deletion has every right to withdraw the whole process. Often, an article goes to AFD, then users 'fix' the problem, so withdrawal is the proper thing to do. In this case, it was an obscure and confusing topic, but once notability is cleary established, it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw and give rationale, ie: "Withdrawing nom, nobability has been established". You are not obligated to, and I am not saying you should or shouldn't. I am just saying it is a perfectly normal thing to do under certain circumstances and no admin would oppose it. Technically, you have the right to withdraw your own nomination of ANY process (speedy tag, etc.) and then someone else can renominate it if they disagree. I've been wrong about a nom once or twice and withdrawn them simply so others won't waste their time 'proving' something that is already proven. No biggie, just wanted to pass that on for general purposes. Pharmboy (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

I believe I have the grasp of policies, but I just don't have the numbers yet. How long, do you suggest, that I wait until my next submission?

I understand that you believe you have a firm grasp, but the key is to show that you do. Participation in deletion discussions is a common way for non-admins to showcase their knowledge, by supporting or opposing deletion on the grounds of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

However, again, there's more to a good admin candidate than just the numbers themselves. For my personal standards, see User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Requirements. For example, aside from a fairly low edit count, I'm not (after just looking at your edit breakdown) seeing a particularly high level of involvement; just a couple of months ago (October), you only had 84 edits. I like seeing consistent activity over a moderately long period of time. Admins are also expected to communicate with other editors, either to explain to unruly users why what they're doing is wrong or explaining various admin activities (such as explaining why they've closed a contentious AfD, etc).

Generally speaking, I'd recommend at least 4 to 6 months between a failed RfA and another attempt, but also keep in mind that, if after 4 to 6 months the concerns haven't been addressed, the time between attempts won't matter very much. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Collins

Any user is entitled to add tags, although it could be vandalism if they were persistently not justified. Most of the tags are are not asking for speedy deletion, but are asking for references to establish notability and other improvements. I saw only one example where the tagging was possibly harsh. Having said that, I picked up genuine vandalism by users "Gavin the loser" and "Gavin the colon" who were systematically reverting the tagging, so the exercise was useful, and I've blocked them. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

swallowing shit

where did you get their albums? what do they sound like? they good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.175.120 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana Barnato Walker

I fully intend to expand the article on this wartime woman pilot, and need more than just one minute to do so after first creating the article! My contributions are always properly researched, which takes an appropriate length of time! RuthAS (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

References for Action for Blind People

I added some references to Action for Blind People. --Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana Barnato Walker - (2)

I dont agree with your remarks - many Wiki articles after various additions are far less weighty than my starting piece. Its a fair start. I can and will add to it after due research and consideration. The length (number of words/letters) is less important then quality of content. RuthAS (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My previous contributions have not been so marked. I dont see how its possible within less than one minute for an article to be properly judged. Please tell me how to mark an article as 'under construction'. RuthAS (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about the 'under construction' tag. After a bit of a struggle, I've learned to apply it - to Walker - but only where strictly necessary! I'll try to be a 'good girl' from here - but my strength is in contributing worthwhile content - not in formats, tags etc etc! RuthAS (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

It's done Jimfbleak (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

soo, why did you delete the El Cid site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobolehobo (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Block etc

Also blocked as vandalism only. Keep plugging away at the vandal/nonsense bashing, looks OK so far, and try again as you suggest. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical glasses

Hello, Undead. I declined the speedy and turned it into a redirect as it turned out to be a term for something we already have an article on. 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Drat. too many ~'s! Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

i'd be glad to.

For now, User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA has info about how I view RfA, including my (obsolete term) "standards".

In your previous RfA, I opposed for a possible lack of dispute resolution understanding. Basically, one should be able to demonstrate or express an understanding of avoid edit warring, seeking a third opinion, RfC, questioning at WP:AN/I. AGF, etc. I've been fortunate in not having been drawn into any real disagreements, but sometimes opposes will come because the nom was not in a conflict and is untried.

I've seen otherwise fine noms not succeed because of one misplaced CSD tag. Once a nom did not succeed because he'd A7'd a misspelled name about an African footballer with content like, "he's the man and is really tall," or some other gibberish. Turned out he was a top man in his sport in that country.

Be careful with the G1 tags. We seem to be using them as a catchall to SNOW articles that would not fit a CSD category but would be WP:SNOW deleted at AFD anyway. Sometimes it's necessary to leave the article alone and then come back to it. A lot of new editors have a hard time writing a decent first stub. (My first stub was speedied as empty. Oops.) Hopefully, they will fix the article in a few minutes. Other things to watch out for are scientific names and mangled translations of articles about notable subjects. It's usually better to take a few minutes to research and edit then to lose an article due to he lack of experience of the creator.

Always take the time to welcome the creator of a speediable article and warn them of the CSD tag. I really got bitten on my first try. Fortunately, I tend to be a miserable, stubborn SOB, and after I said a few razzlesnatching razzlesnatches I went on about my business. A welcome is a subtle way of taking the sting out and giving them one more opportunity to please read the (expletive deleted) instructions. Notifying them on the CSD helps them understand what went wrong and how to fix it. Much better than the "how dare you create an empty article," I got.

Hope that helps.

Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If your not doing so already, take part in the RfA discussions. That will make your name familiar to other RfA participants and you can learn from the experiences of others. Hope that helps. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OH, yes-- article creation and improvement. It helps if you can poit to a number of articles (even stubs) you've created or improved. I prowl the unsorted stubs and the G1's looking for articles to fix up. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Templates

I'd hardly consider it redesigning or personal preference. What your saying implies you have ownership of a template, which goes against the principles of a wiki, and I changed it to a standardised template with standard colour scheme so I really wouldn't consider it a personal preference or solely your choice to make. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I think that this template is really pointless, it links 3 relevant pages together (2 of which lack the template) and NAVBOX states that red links and unlinked text (which constitute most of this template) should be avoided. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Even still iv seen nothing saying that they shouldn't be changed or that they should be black, and black makes it impossible to see the v • d • e links on them. And I don't see how the Watain template really helps navigation or as reminder to what needs to be done, its only on one page that already lists everything that they lack; it may become useful in the future but at the moment it really doesn't add to the article. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The template that you were using in your templates has an option to change the colour of the vde links, that iv only just noticed. And there's a wikiproject that is attempting to standardise musician templates, that includes background colour (and the only yellow navboxes I've seen have been on solo singer articles which are supposed to be yellow according to the same project and the closest thing to red I've seen is on the genre pages, which aren't really directly relevant to this). And no, all I could argue with it is that navboxes that only go to pages that are already listed on the pages they appear on are useless. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Speedy Deletion Tags and Partyflock

After I removed your speedy delete tag from Partyflock, you (signing as undeath) left a message on my page saying "Do not remove speedy tags. Only admins should do that." I'm not quite sure where you got the notion that only admins were allowed to remove speedy tags. Anybody can--as stated in the first screen of WP:SPEEDY. I do it when I think something shouldn't be deleted. I think you'll agree if you look at the De Telegraaf piece I quoted on the talk page that partyflock is notable. Regards--Wageless (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the hangon tag, I just deleted the speedy tag. I assume that the creator of the article added the hangon tag, as he's supposed to do if he disagrees with what you've done. The speedy tag says "If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: hangon directly below this tag."--Wageless (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you really should take a closer look at the text of the tag. Here's what it said yesterday on partyflock: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I didn't create the page--I just didn't think that partyflock met the criteria for speedy deletion, having found some articles in De Telegraaf on LexisNexis. Ergo I deleted the tag. Perfectly reasonable thing to do. Regards--Wageless (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Wageless is correct. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your review

I placed it Here. Hope it helps. If you have any questions, please let me know. cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Armageddon's evolution - neuthrone.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Armageddon's evolution - neuthrone.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a fair-use template to the image page, this should ensure it is alright. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if it's OK now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not being helpfull

DOn't you think it's a bit rude and inconsiderate to say that 2 years of musical effort are "un-notable" or "insignificant"? What's wrong with helping a musician, ah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mens Rea Band (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mens Rea

Re your message: Well, he's headed that way, but not quite yet. I just left him a second to last warning and then I noticed that another editor did the same thing. I'm trying to cut him some slack since he is a new editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Yeah, I noticed that. I deleted it for the third time (I didn't delete the first one). We'll see if he stops or not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No, I don't have anything else to add. I think you pretty much covered it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But we have done that

You wrote that when we your a country, than we deserve a wikipedia page, and we have! Just this last fall we came to The States from Israel for 8 shows! And since you say you've been a part of a band, you should know it is a huge step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mens Rea Band (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can prove it!

We played 8 clubs in NYC, including the famous Kenny's Castaways, you've probably heard of it, it is where Aerosmith and Springsteen practically started their careers! And I for one think that saying that a label is a minimum condition for a band to have a wikipedia page is wrong. You know well enough that not everything that's signed is any good, whereas on the other hand, many indie bands are pretty great

Your suggestion isn't that easy to apply

We are Israelis, we can't just arrive in an American country, Besides, we have toured the entire Israel, and have a song of ours released in an American Compilation. I think it's notable Sorry, couldn't find the tilde sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mens Rea Band (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• When somebody cares so much about having the article here, and the article is decently written, and it's already been written, what harm is it to leave it in place rather than deleting? Even Jimbo Wales is an "inclusionist." --AStanhope (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel that there is so much good work and indisputably positive and productive work to be done on the Wikipedia that deleting articles that have already been written and that have editors who care about them is a misdirection of resources. --AStanhope (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

albums

I have no idea whether For Those Who Don't Believe is notable or appropriate for a WP article, but I can tell it does not meet the specifications for speedy A1, lack of context;. it's a recording by a named group of musicians, by a named distributor, and that is the context. Please read WP:CSD for the explanation of the deletion criteria.DGG (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Undead warrior! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 17:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can give you places and names of venues where we performed

don't have any reviews on shows from 3rd party. I do have some articles made on us, but they're in Hebrew

I can give you places and names of venues where we performed

don't have any reviews on shows from 3rd party. I do have some articles made on us, but they're in Hebrew~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mens Rea Band (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI about your rollback usage

Hello, Undead warrior. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding An editor has called into question your use of the rollback tool on heavy metal templates.. The discussion can be found under the topic An editor abusing Rollback privileges. --Metros (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed

These edits are a misuse of rollback [2][3][4][5][6]. It has clearly been used in a content dispute about changing colours on a template which the tool should not be used for. Here you clearly recognise that this is a content dispute. I have therefore removed your rollback tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: This edit If you are trying to get a different outcome, this won't do it. If your trying to say your sorry and you won't do it again, that's cool, but there might be better ways to say it. Jeepday (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Template standards

You keep saying that you're trying to make these templates into the standard ones, but what I don't understand is why you insist on putting in those black and white templates. If the standard is {{Navbox Musical artist}}, why do you keep putting in yours? Metros (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I've left a message for metros. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Ponte

I was about to prod this article, when I checked the creator's talk page and saw you were telling him the article was nominated for speedy deletion.

Problem was, I saw no signs of such a nomination. No big box, no category, no speedy template in the source, and no sign of such in the page history. At first I wondered if you forgot to save page? :)

Then I thought to check the logs, and indeed, within an hour this page had been patrolled, you had left the talk page note, and the article had been deleted. And then, it had been recreated within another hour. Ah.

I can't view the deleted revisions (can I?), so I can't say if the article has been substantially improved. I still think it is a deletion candidate (or I would not have considered prod), but since you were first (and have seen the pre-deletion article), I'll let you do the honours.

Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Timesand

Hi, my page has been tagged for fast deleting, and I don't know why. It is my bands page. I'll try to fix everything, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesand (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Human Error... - neuthrone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Human Error... - neuthrone.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FFR

I prefer not to play jumping games (carrying on one half of a conversation on each person's talk page), so please read my response to your comment and continue the conversation here. Thanks! - Chardish (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It took me a little while to work out that I had deleted the page last November. I looked up the log and it has been deleted numerous times -- mostly because it failed an articles for deletion (AfD) process which you can find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Flash Revolution. I'm not prepared to recreate the page and protect it -- I feel that that would be disrespectful to the people who took the time to give their opinions during the AfD -- but I will recreate the page in a sandbox for you so that you can work on it, then take it through WP:Deletion review. I believe that deletion review would be the only way that you could be assured of having the article last, if you truly believe it is notable and if you can provide the researched citations you suggest. Alternatively, if you want, I'll make the sandbox for you, you can work on the article, then when you feel you're ready to go with it, I will mount the page and immediately take it to AfD for a second go-round. If you think that either of these things is what you'd like to do, leave a note on my talk page (or if you have an idea that I haven't thought of, I'll certainly listen to it). Accounting4Taste:talk 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the contents of the last revision to User:Undead warrior/Sandbox. Let me know when you're ready to move forward with this, and what you'd like to do. In the meantime, if there's something further I can help you with, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mother Brain

I understand you've tagged my new article for deletion. I'm working on it and I've added more info. Please let me finish the article. Thanks for understanding. New York Dreams (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arthur Meyer (journalist)

Arthur Meyer (journalist) has since been completely translated from the French page. It should now be up to standards and no longer marked for deletion. Thank you for your help. Peridragon (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Goddard High School

There is a question for you on the talk page. Pairadox (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Skewer (band)

I've removed your speedy tag from Skewer (band), as I feel that having a single played on international radio is an assertion of notability. If you'd like to pursue deletion further, I'd recommend taking it to AFD. Best, shoy 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your request for comment

I've quoted some paragraphs from my talk page for your convenience.

I was nominated for adminship not too long ago, and I failed miseraby. XD I was wondering if you could just take a brief look at my contributions and tell me what I'm doing good on, and what I need to improve on. (don't bother with the whole rollback issue, i've taken care of it and heard enough of it lol) Thanks. Undeath (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give this some thought and attention before I reply. I went and read your RfA and found that a couple of editors whose opinions I respect -- notably User:Pedro, who is the reason I'm an admin at all -- had interesting things to say that seemed worthwhile. I need to log out for a while but I intend to look into your contributions, since you've honoured me by asking for your opinion, and I'll report back to you. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a good look through your most recent thousand contributions. I have to say that since I am very, very far from being expert in modern music, I can't assess much of your work in terms of its quality, but it seems that you're doing good things and contributing both information and assistance. I couldn't actually say that you are doing anything wrong -- but there's something I think is important to a person's ability to contribute over the long term that you may want to think about. This is a little complicated, so pardon me if I seem long-winded; much of the following is in general terms and doesn't relate to you specifically.

There are many reasons to contribute to Wikipedia in the short term. Some of them are good and some of them are more about ego than anything else. ("I know more than ANYBODY about such-and-such," or "How DARE you muck up my nice tidy article with your silly trivial comment, I'm reverting YOU, so there.") What keeps a person working here for the longer run, as I see it, is that they have developed a reason for contributing that isn't about ego but about altruism. I've seen people contribute enormous amounts of work here that were, as someone put it in my RfA, about being a "traffic cop"; they usually burn out and leave. I surely do do a lot of traffic cop work on new page patrol. But if you look at my contributions, I really try hard to help newbies as best I can -- deleting the crap quickly, but helping people who really want to contribute articles to do that.

As I said, I don't think you are doing anything wrong. But what I think you might want to develop is a philosophy that will keep you here for a long time, one that's based on altruism. I think that might be one of the things that the commenters in your RfA were looking for and didn't really find. (You do help people, don't get me wrong. What I didn't see was a consistent pattern of helping people.) So what I would recommend is that you stop thinking about admin tools, for the moment, and start focusing on helping people for the sake of helping them. You might find help desk rewarding. You might work on saving articles by helping their newbie creators with citations. You might pick a few articles at random that are tagged for speedy deletion and see if you can improve them to the point where they get retained. And if you do this sort of thing and completely stop thinking about getting admin status, I suggest that a couple of things will happen. One is that you will develop a really wide knowledge of Wikipedian policy -- it happens in the course of helping people. Another is that you will have some interaction with people who are grateful for your assistance; those people are the ones that you might be having this chat with, 18 months from now, about how you can guide them towards admin status. Having people grateful for your help feels good, it's not very ego-oriented, and it's sure a lot better than "Why the !#@$@ did you mark the page about my garage band for deletion, you !@#$@#$?". A third reason is that you will gain the kind of emotional distance that many people who comment in RfAs are looking for. A fourth reason is that you will gain the kind of experience -- wide-ranging, in a number of different areas -- that people who comment in RfAs are looking for. And finally, what might happen is that someone will come to you and say, "I think it's time for your RfA", at a point when you'd forgotten all about wanting to have another one. At that point, it really WILL be time for your second RfA (it sounds like a paradox, but when you stop wanting one, it's frequently time to have one).

Two other small comments -- I would recommend that you not even think about another RfA until you have a total of 5,000 edits and, as I think other people have mentioned, you have about three times as many userboxes as anyone else I've ever seen. It's not just that it loads slowly for people with a slow connection, but it's a symbol, or a signal -- it tells people that your ego is involved in what you do here, because you want people to know all about your likes and dislikes. Perhaps you might hide the userboxes on a separate page from your User page, but also you might consider adopting the "Wikignome" philosophy which is, as I interpret it, help as much as you can and be anonymous.

I hope you have found this helpful. I admit I haven't been asked for this sort of observation before, so I may have gone overboard. I apologize in advance if you have found any of this insulting -- it's certainly not meant to be so, and I'm actually trying to show you a path towards a successful (hell, a UNANIMOUS) RfA at some future point. If there's anything further I can do to help you, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Eric Patrick asserts numerous awards-- ds at The Black Maria Film Festival, The Humboldt International Film Festival, Semana de Cine Experimental de Madrid, South by Southwest Film Festival, The Ann Arbor Film Festival, U.S.A. Film Festival, Big Muddy Film Festival, and Festival de Cinema Independent de Barcelona. He is therefore quite possibly notable. But even if you think the awards insufficient for actual notability, any assertion however weak of anything that someone could reasonably think possibly important is enough to defeat a speedy. if you think it not sufficient to pass WP:N, use afd. DGG (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chill.

I'm sorry for posting the bell schedules, but you really need not be so offended. Aggressiveness and mockery will only provoke anger and hurt your objective of pointing out WP:NOT. Again, sorry. — Ian Lee (Talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

reply

seen your messages, just back from Thailand, so need to recover before proper reply Jimfbleak (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the sockpuppetry, but the Afd has been concluded, so would need to be listed again. I'll lookat your contributions in a few days when I've caught up Jimfbleak (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied BAD - although referenced, one site is a wiki and the other is a spam link, so if there is any flak now, I'll take it. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re the family page, I share your misgivings, but I don't know quite what to do about it. Each of the people listed seems to meet the notability criteria, and although the article is unreffed, it clearly could be by copying the refs from individual articles. Its neutral in tone and not copyright, so on what basis could it be speedied/AfDed? Jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Boren has gone, previous AFD anyway. I'll give some thought to the others before rushing in Jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Favor

I see above that you engaged in discussion with Dlohcierkim. Did that not work out or something? Rudget. 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. I'll be able to get back to you in a few hours, maybe tomorrow. Rudget. 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be doing fine, in my opinion. Just try and improve your edit summary usage, (at the moment it is pretty low), because after all if people don't leave little notes in the summary about what they've just done it makes searching the history for correct diffs etc. quite difficult. I also think you need a few more edits (if at RfA, you'll see that some people are unwilling to support if editcounts are low) which is sometimes necessary if the user has around -1000 edits et al. You may also wish to get involved in other Wikipedia areas, such as WP:AIV (users can be reported after an edit which is unacceptable after a final warning - these are usually found at Special:Recentchanges), WP:UAA - where usernames that are inappropriate are reported (i.e. company names with the user attempting to promote that fact) [they can usually be found on Special:Log/newusers. You might also want to get involved with discussion at WP:ANI and if necessary, WP:AN. Otherwise, you're fine. Are you self-nominating for RFA? Rudget. 12:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. :) Rudget. 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I may do. I'll keep reviewing your contributions right up until Jim put's his on. Rudget. 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to have to refrain from adding a co-nomination. I hope you don't mind. Rudget. 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PDF

It's in the Image namespace, not the article namespace, so whether it's an article or not is irrelevant in this instance (and the software told you this when you tried to set the AfD, BTW). It is therefore a corrupt image, and I'm going to speedy it anyhow. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From your reply, I think you don't quite see the position: precedent has nothing to do with it - where an item on Wikipedia is sent for deletion has absolutely nothing to do with what it is, but where it is.

This is why we have a set of policies dealing with what goes in which namespace. If content is in userspace, it goes to MfD; if it is in imagespace, it goes to IfD, regardless of what it is; and if it is in article space, it goes to AfD. Therefore, a PDF in imagespace goes to IfD, and the same item in article space goes to AfD. However, most of the time it is inappropriate content anyway (Mediawiki can't read them, so no one else can either) and they can therefore be CSDed as nonsense articles or empty/corrupt images. MSJapan (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AQG Computing

How is this advertising? I did not spam, just put on wiki details of a notable company. I have read all your rules and it says it is ok. AQGComputing (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my company - where did you get that from? I have removed the phone number. AQGComputing (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an assertion of notability! They make the coldest computer cooling system there is. How does it read like an advertisement? All I am trying to do is give information for wiki AQGComputing (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Concert in ON tv

Dont eraser the article pelase Gleydson (talk) Gleydson —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tracy...

The IP was 128.104.112.70. --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Families etc

I've deleted Taft family, left Udall since referenced, needs AfD rather than speedy. I looked at a random sample of you contributions (life's too short to check them all!), and they look fine to me. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The ifds look OK to me, but I'm really the wrong person to ask, since I never do these myself. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful!

Perhaps you were biting a little bit here? MSGJ (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. The copyvio tagging was perfectly appropriate. The author had claimed on the talk page that the website in question was their own and so they were entitled to use it. The only reason I left this message for you was that your response seemed a little harsh, perhaps even rude. Can't remember exactly but it ended with "... Delete it now." I just thought an explanation of why it wasn't allowed might be more welcoming. But anyway, no big issue! Cheers, MSGJ (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I'm sure that you're a very well intentioned user. However, looking at your talk page, I see some concerns regarding misuse of rollback, accusations of biting, et cetera. You're showing more experience, but I still think that like me, you have a ways to go before making admin status. Good luck just the same. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would still be of concern, however, since it was fairly recent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I don't mind nominating, but I'm a bit busy with other things until middle of next week, which would also give time for the dust to settle from the above Jimfbleak (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag Icons

I'm sorry but you are incorrrect, the manual of style clearly states that flag icons should not be used for nationalist pride or decoration. Your post clearly suggests that this is exactly why you support this use. The flags have no place in a list where nationality has no part in the criteria. This is not a list of bands by nationality. Lists should not provide arbitrary information for no reason. They are simply contents not article summaries. This is a clear case of Wikipedia:Fancruft as non involved editors have agreed that this is a misuse. --neonwhite user page talk 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As i have said before there is no need to emphasise nationality in this list, it is as irrelevant as any other attribute is to the criteria other than the genre of the band of course. The fact that they may provide information is not important, it is not essential information and of no consequence to the purpose of the list, it is unecessary decoration in the case of this list. The guideline does not suggest using flagicons in this way and I have already pointed out that it says that flags should not be used to highlight nationality without a good reason. There is no good reason here. --neonwhite user page talk 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they can provide information is important. Look at WP:FLAG, it states that directly. You have mis-quoted WP:FLAG for your own reasonings. I believe that you are deleting flag icons, not on account of WP:FLAG, but because of your own personal preference. You were the only person who was deleting them on the music pages, and the other editors, the main contributors and other members of the wikiproject metal, were all for keeping the icons. All of the music lists have the icons on them. If they were in violation, someone else would have noticed them too and would have deleted them. As it stands, no one has deleted them. The lists are widely known throughout wikipedia, and for them and the icons to survive this long states that they are meant to be the way they are. I have stated that the icons do promote nationalality and for a good reason. I don't like to say it this way, but, you need to be well read in metal to understand how a nationality can tell you about the style of a band. Undeath (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon debate

I'm sorry that I missed the debate. A lot of crazy things were happening around my college and I could not reply in time. So is it really over? or not? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I might just reply and be #7 then. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting images to be speedily deleted

Hi, please use {{di-no license|date=6 March 2008}} and {{di-no source|date=6 March 2008}} instead of {{db-imgcopyvio}} to request images with possible copyright violation. This will helps user who upload images to fix the problems with lack of licensing and source. Cheers. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

KNT´s

if not delete these article, i ll go rewriter please take me more time

thanks

Gleydson (talk)user:Gleydson

KNT´s

if not delete these article, i ll go rewriter please take me more time

thanks

Gleydson (talk)user:Gleydson —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The mandrake

The only reliable source for establishing notability of the band is the allmusic review. The other sites are either the label's buy our cd's page or other places to buy thier cds. those are not sufficient. I want the article to stay, but there are a lot of folks who interpret the notability and reliable sources very tightly and could make a reasonable arguement at an AFD that the band isn't notable, since there is only reliable source in the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipages

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) which is why I am sending these messages to random people.

These listed Wikipages Need your help!

Whoever knows when Alf Schofield died please put in on the Alf Schofield page, that would really help.

Look at the Talk:Kangaroo (meat) page regarding my post- Kangaroo Species- that would really help.

Look at Talk:Katharine McPhee regarding her spouse under Relationships by Keane Rox.

For April 2007 Nor'easter well, I put in a fact and referenced it and now I don't know how to complete the reference. Click the blue 2 reference and you'll know what I mean. Then click the [2] at the top of the April 2007 Nor'easter article and complete the reference.

Spread the word for these Wikipages in need! That is all.

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)