Archives

Dec 2006 - April 2008 May 2008 - July 2008 July 2008 - November 2008

I'm a little confused about Flyer22 being reported here [1]. I'm not that familiar with Wikiquette so I'm not sure what exactly it is she did wrong here [2]. Are we not allowed to reply to other editor's comments and "votes" during this process? Thanks! Rocksey (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some was a little off topic but ultimately there are no limitations about much you can write in an afd, though i think summarizing can be beneficial. --neon white talk 23:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just to be clear, Flyer22 didn't do anything wrong besides go off topic? She isn't "guilty" of proof by assertion? Rocksey (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to believe I remained on-topic, except for in the beginning when I went on my little rant about that article being created by an inexperienced Wikipedian editor who does not have a good grasp on most or even several of Wikipedia's policies yet and who knew I was already going to create that article. But oh well. I did not do anything so wrong that it needed reporting, which Neon white has made clear. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the small comment "I point out that Paul75 feels this way about all fictional couple or supercouple articles." that was about another editor and not about the subject. Try to stay away from such comments, they have no bearing on the result so are pointless. Afds, like the rest of wikipedia are decided by a clear consensus based on policies. I'm not saying Flyer22 was doing this but if an editor does merely state an opinion over and over again without backing it up with policy, it isn't going to carry much weight when the afd is closed. The closer is going to look for points based on policy. As far as i can see there is no etiquette rule that says this is wrong, it's just ineffective. --neon white talk 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I "hear" you. I was backing up my statements with policy -- its WP:Notability policy, a policy I saw Paul75 clearly overlooking due to his bias in regards to these types of articles. It's clear that even after it was fixed up, he was not willing to change his stance. I simply do not understand editors like that and do not feel that they are what is best for Wikipedia. If I see an ulterior motive in a deletion debate, yes, I do point it out.

That said, I do get your point. And thanks for the advice. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith with other editors. --neon white talk 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further. Disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in. As memory serves me correct, we have only ever clashed over two articles Supercouples and List of supercouples. You know the rules of Wikipedia - assume good faith, please stop these persistent attacks on me, and please, as I know you will, do not counter with a response that I persistently attack you. Stop seeing criticism or suggestions on some soap related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. Paul75 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been warned about assuming good faith. --neon white talk 13:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, saying "if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further" is a threat. Do not threaten me.

That said, I cannot help it that I feel you are biased when it comes to these articles. Yes, we clashed on the Supercouple and List of fictional supercouples articles, and I know what you said during those clashes. I also know that the deletion of an article here at Wikipedia should not be about opinion; it should be about whether the article has merit to stand on its own. The Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article clearly did/does and yet you still "voted" Delete. In fact, you did not change your Delete "vote" even after the article was fixed up by Rocksey. I mean, what am I supposed to think of your involvement in that deletion debate? Even the editor who nominated that article for deletion saw that he was wrong after it provided notability and was fixed up by Rocksey. I later fixed it up even more after that. Saying "disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in." also does not make me think that differently about you on this matter. I mean, we would have likely agreed on a lot regarding the soap opera articles I have been involved in here, considering that most of these soap opera articles are a mess. It is not like I have fixed up every soap opera article I have ever been involved in here.

I do not see criticism or suggestions on some soap opera-related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. You remember, don't you, that I was open to the changes you wanted to make to the List of fictional supercouples article? It was one of the two fellow editors maintaining that article with me that acted like you were doing an unspeakable crime. In fact, I thank you for stumbling across that article and doing what you did to help it, even the way you started out there by nominating it for deletion when it was simply List of supercouples. I even later thanked you and AniMate then.

I do apologize, Paul, for making you feel like public enemy #1. I do not want to continue to have you as an enemy here, and I sometimes like your strict attitude regarding some of these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could spare the time, could you rejoin the discussion over at Talk:Interactive fiction#Third_Opinion? The discussion has continued. I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts, and Thibbs has asked as well. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to get the band Rites of Spring placed in the right location. I tried that before, only to be shouted down by some other editors and I gave up. Here's the thing: people keep messing with it. One guy went on a rampage after his speedy delete was rejected ([3]) and people keep moving it around and creating redirects. Today, I spent 2 hours fixing a bunch of broken redirects. Can you see about getting the page location locked by an administrator? I have no idea and you seem knowledgeable and helpful.--Emotional Wiki Dude (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it was correct before. According to the guidelines, disambiguation is only for where articles would have the same title not for similar titles and only for where there are more than 2 articles or where there is no obvious primary topic. In this case the titles are not the same so disambiguation is not essential, although it is conceivable that for someone to search 'rites of spring' when wanting 'the rite of spring' by mistake and that's why the link exists on the band article and i believe is sufficient. I cannot think of any reason how someone would find it confusing. --neon white talk 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will pardon the pun - WOW. Removing references because they need improving seems a bit excessive. Am I missing something? cygnis insignis 10:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can easily be put back once they are verifiable. --neon white talk 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote on your User page... are you aware that Albert Einstein was referring to you when he stated that? 204.112.216.94 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had been dead 35 years before i was born. --neon white talk 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==

---

==

ahm?! how did u upload a picture on this website??? can u tell me how..??? please........ and one more question.. is this website don't have that lots of images?? like 5ive girls the movie.. they don't give any images..T.T and lyrics of songs...i didn't find any song lyrics of paramore..

oh well, i guess i'll just used yahoo for me 2 do my research for school projects! .. my dad give me this website last night.. and its so mean! because this is the only website i have in my internet.. i was thinking this site is good to do research since its named is wikipedia.. but sad to know.. they give only a little information.. and so.. i only have few information about my research..T.T waaaaaaaaaaa??!?!?!?! --Vanessa2403 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403 November 29,2008[reply]

pray WP:DTTR. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern but it is rejected (see WP:DoTTR), a warning about edit warring is necessary and i advise you follow the advise. --neon white talk 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "concerned". I was asking you that, if you feel compelled to drop me a warning or advise, well, then you drop me a warning or advise. You have done that now, so thanks for your concern. If you feel your expertise can be put to use on the Sanskrit article, I'll be happy to hear your input, at Talk:Sanskrit. Your dropping me a uw-3rr doesn't really show that you are aware of anything that is going on. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone viewing the articles history can see edit warring going on. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject but clearly edit warring is not the answer. --neon white talk 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would benefit from contemplating Wikipedia:sword-skeleton theory. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why i would have any interest in that page. --neon white talk 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time I've caught you making unhelpful commentary on the Wikiquette alert pages, and it seems I am not the only experienced user who shares that concern.

Wikiquette alerts is a stage in dispute resolution and while incivility is the core, it does divulge on conduct issues - it's not a mere matter of throwing accusations around when diffs have been provided. Parties generally come to the page due to conduct or content issues with another editor. If these issues are not resolved at this stage, it moves up the cycle to another stage. It appears you fail to understand how this process works, and lack the understanding on how to apply relevant policies, guidelines and norms. While the community values all the input in trying to resolve disputes, repeatedly providing incorrect or unhelpful commentary simply disrupts the dispute resolution process in general.

If I see more of this sort of unhelpful commentary, I intend on pursuing dispute resolution so as to have a consensus to admonish you for the largely unhelpful nature of your edits and comments. If the problem continues beyond that point, and the admonishment does not have a sufficient effect on you, I will request a ban so that you are prevented from making edits relating to complaints made on the Wikiquette alert pages. I hope that such a measure will not become necessary. If you intend on regularly commenting on complaints at WQA, please take greater care to ensure you are up to date with the norms of the relevant page and seek clarification where needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this attack to the alert as more evidence of incivility. --neon white talk 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than one user has found your commentary to be simply unhelpful, and if you are going to tendentiously insist that you are right when you are not, then this is likely to move towards a binding form of dispute resolution. I have told you once; I'm not going to tell you again after this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors involved with Wikiquette alerts give their opinion on a voluntary basis and it is perfectly ok to disagree with it, however attacking editors giving a third opinion simply because you disagree with it is utterly innapropriate behaviour. If you disagree with the opinion given you are welcome to respond to it in a civil manner on the wikiquette page. Responding is such a poor manner is not helping your case at all. I will not tolerate any further personal attacks or baseless accusations on this page. As has already been pointed out wikiquette alerts is about civility not article content. --neon white talk 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Ncmvocalist is quite right. You need to consider at some greater length the nature of the comments you are posting WP:WQA. They are too often unhelpful and counter-productive. I urge you to be more circumspect. Eusebeus (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, whilst i respect both your opinions, i completely disagree. I stand by all the comments made. I can only find this particular case where an editor has react badly (unecessarily in my opinion). Of course some editors may react badly to comments made about them, i think this is sometimes unavoidable. We must remember that WQA is to hewlp editors improve, some seem to feel it exists simply to condemn other editors and tag them as 'bad apples'. This is not the way to improve matters. Please also note that comments on the page only carry as much weight as people allow them to. If you have any particular examples i would be happy to address any issues with them in the same way i would have done had Ncmvocalist requested it. I am disappointed that you have chosen not to maintain neutrality on this matter. --neon white talk 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my reports against Dbachmann and Ncmvocalist for incivility not wikiquette related? ­ Kris (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were but they were dismissed as there were no real grounds for compliant. --neon white talk 14:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for posting the polite message on EuroHistoryTeacher's talk page. Since then though, he has continued, and I'm not sure if you saw my post on the noticeboard - [4]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the genre be Pop, or Pop Punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? --neon white talk 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, this kid is really starting to annoy me now, reverting the redirects we have implemented without discussion. Any idea how we can get him to stop? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed your merger proposal has been on the page for quite a while now. I've been looking back over the WP:MUSIC guidelines and, even though i opposed the merger before, i actually think its probably a good idea to go ahead with it. I think also that the images on those pages might become a bit redundant, you might want to csd them or something. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, there is an AN/I thread about you started by User:Magog the Ogre, it is available here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hayley_Williams. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neon white, I want to say I'm sorry for not responding properly the other day with the Hayley Williams page. I wish I had taken a more high road; I didn't. Please accept the apology (though, by no means do I change my position). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, i think the article could be discussed further at a future date. As there are many improvements that are needed. --neon white talk 16:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added reasons for the deletion of the content. The sources for that information are not reliable and the informations are false. This wonderful website, wikipedia, contains a correct explanation of the meaning of emo (yes, that's a short for 'emotional hardcore'. weezer is not performing hardcore music) and what it is not. Julian.l91 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; it's become necessary for me to file a Wikiquette alert against this user. I'm informing you as a courtesy due to your involvement in related discussions. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:S3884h. Thanks. Warren -talk- 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at this. The editor who has been going at it with me for the past two weeks has stoop to a new low by making me look like the real bad guy, when clearly I have done absolutely nothing wrong. And let my record log be proof to that. I only have one editor who is in discontent with me, and that is the one filing this false complaint right here for all his wrongdoings to begin with, while this editor has many other editors besides me who are in discontent with him. But if he wants to call me out, be my guest. But let the respective record logs reflect all the wrong doings made by the editor. It is so amazing how all of this chaos started when I just simply did the right thing, rightfully and respectfully put a person name on the title because is where it belongs. Warren. S3884h (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this use the WQA. --neon white talk 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had this transcluded twice in the log. I fixed it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Not sure how that happened. --neon white talk 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together some thoughts on civility at User:Gerardw/Civility and would appreciate your input. Feel free to WP:BOLD and edit if you'd like. Gerardw (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quickly comment here[5] ? Thanks Grey Fox (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This courtesy notice is being offered on your talk page as you have been active in music related discussions in the past. A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Disease Day. I left a response to your question there. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how is my contribution to Hayley Williams's article utter rubbish? She is featured in other songs outside of Paramore (yes, it is her!), why can't that be mentioned in a short discography? Not really an eye-sore, is it? I used the same layout from Amy Lee of Evanescence's personal discography section of her article which seems reasonable enough. But hey, if you really feel it shouldn't be on there and/or there has already been a discussion about it then I'm sorry, but don't get arsey with me, mister. I was only trying to help out. Dark Horse King (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the article's history carefully. The comment was about this edit by User:85.23.74.4 which added unsourced bio info. It is completely unrelated to any of your edits. --neon white talk 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad! I saw my name in your edit summery and thought it was you. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I will be more careful in future. =] Dark Horse King (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I understand how those edit summaries can be misread, i've done it before. --neon white talk 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain go to Talk:Global Relief Foundation and explain why you placed a {{pov}} on that article?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flight Safety Foundation 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 companies and corporations.

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 page 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 page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those groups do not connect to Pop art, and the links are gratuitous and irrelevant...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA *is* dispute resolution; I'm objecting to the way Ikip is hindering dispute resolution of the content dispute. What else am I supposed to do about an editor hounding me and violating CIVIL even after he's blocked for hounding me? THF (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you didn't read my complaint. This is not a content dispute, this is a civility dispute. Ikip has tried to turn it into a content dispute by falsely accusing me of edit-warring, which is exactly the incivil behavior I'm complaining about, even though I haven't even violated 1RR. You're letting him throw mud on the WQA process--just because he's misusing it to complain about the content dispute doesn't mean that I am. THF (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the brief nature of this, please see my userpage (not talk) for details. Once again, thanks for all the help and input at WQA, you make the Wiki a better place! Edit Centric (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using Utan Vax's genre troll "noticeboard" (Well, I want to turn it into one). I've left Arcai a gentle note about his genre changes, as per my genre troll essay. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the layout of Utan Vax's page? I want to improve it and make it look cleaner and more efficience. Thanks in advance for anything you think of! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, they're intractable. Both lie at opposite extreme sides of the inclusion spectrum, with Dream Focus the inclusionist and Collectonian the deletionist, and wear their beliefs on their sleeves. Any attempt to resolve a content dispute isn't going to happen between the two. I originally was simply going to institute a ban on interaction between the two—I've been extremely busy with midterms and an unfortunate passing away in the family so I haven't exactly had time to watch the two—but I'm frequently seeing that it's not that much of a productive avenue. I will note that Dream Focus does tend to stalk or at least go through Collectonian's contributions, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that he's here for policy wonkery at AfD and really nothing else. He tends to take the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" conflict rather seriously (note the litany of stuff on his user page) and as a new user, is a bit unfamiliar with basic editing processes. For instance, he wasn't aware that a merge sometimes meant that very little to no information was actually merged because merging usually requires the moved material to be verifiable. I would chalk this up as inexperience, but he's frequently showing that he's a bit intractable once he sets his mind towards something. Collectonian has a pretty solid set of content contributions (several sets of featured and good content) and is one of the regulars at WP:ANIME. The main reason I'd hate to institute a ban on interaction would be abusal of the process to force Collectonian to deviate from what is normally her preferred workspace of articles and restricting her from doing so would be unfair. Collectonian does tend to get pretty heated when pressed on conflicts in mainspace and projectspace editing, so Dream Focus' intractable attitude (and lack of any sort of policy or guideline basis for his beliefs from my experience) tends to grate on her.

As for a solution, it's hard to come by. ANI is not really a solution because this is a set of isolated incidents rather than one big one and it becomes harder to discern where administrator interaction is necessary. An RfC would be toothless. Mediation is pointless because neither will agree to it. I agree that WQA doesn't really help either. Ideally, we'd set a ban on interaction, but I'm not so certain how we would set it to avoid it being gamed. Perhaps if they're commenting in a community process (AfD, RfC, whatever), they're not allowed to directly address one another? I'm open to ideas. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also my reply on Sephiroth BCR's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page. Let's keep this discussion centered there. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion really isn't going anywhere, I think RfC/U is a better course to resolve this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, i'd like to give it a few days, i think we can agree something between the two editors. --neon white talk 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently reported for Wikiquette and am not sure about the process and noticed that you are managing it, is it an open discussion that I can add to or is it a closed discussion. Can I issue a Wikiquette alert in response toward the other user although I do understand that is not a constructive point of view but I do to a degree feel that I'm constantly shut down by the other user. Any info/advice would be helpful. Regard Random12347 (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir- a partial repost from the Wikialert page. Thank you for your kind words. I will admit, I was a little short with the language sent in those talk pages, but I was simply following advice found on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution; it suggests finding uninvolved editors to get feedback from, which you can see I did; and the one editor who then did contribute, I softly rebuked. Truly, resorting to canvassing at this stage would have destroyed any legitimacy my arguments might have. I was simply perplexed why so many people were getting so worked up, spending enormous amounts of time ignoring the counterpoints and arguments I was making, and I wanted some honest feedback from people who've experienced the process before. If you look, you will see with user "Bali Ultimate", for instance, after suggesting the article Peter Jukes was deleted because of his words on The Motley Moose AfD, I looked a little closer and immediately apologized; however, he seems to have taken it badly and things have gone downhill from there. Sigh. I certainly didn't intend for things to get so contentious. I wish there was a way to make it all go away, we all could be improving Wikipedia instead of all this rigamarole. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In line with my previous comment [6] (still viewable on your talk page), it appears you have continued to make counter productive commentary at Wikiquette alert. Everything has a context, and it is clear that seicer wasn't attempting to attack anyone in the comment you responded to here - she merely explained to Black Kite why felt there was no offense in her comments, and what sort of comment she felt would by contrast cause offense. Discussing one's position is not attacking WQA contributors; that is plain common sense. Please stop and think; it is unacceptable to continually engage in unhelpful and counterproductive commentary (frivolous accusations), as it escalates disputes rather than resolve them.

WQA contributors, particularly regulars, are meant to comment at this venue to help towards resolving disputes, both in intention, and in effect - or to direct them to the next venue where they can continue to attempt to do so. Your commentary did not accomplish either/or. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now you are creating drama to simply create drama" is a personal attack and incivil. It is unacceptable in a WAQ as it is in any discussion. My reminder was both appropriate and necessary.--neon white talk 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack; Black Kite, the comment who it was directed at, also agrees that it was a not a personal attack. If you cannot distinguish between the two by this point, then there's a major problem here. As such, until you can understand that your commentary here was unhelpful, I see no choice but to move to the next step. No amount of trying to disguise it will change the end outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, read the WP:NPA policy, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. The rule is comment on content not contributors. I think you seriously need to reconsider this petty personal vendetta, like any editor you are free to disagree with my opinion but taking a simple disagreement to such lengths is harming no-one but yourself. You have been advised to drop it by multiple third parties and i think that is good advise. Kindly refrain from posting here again. --neon white talk 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, whilst I clearly think seicer was wrong, I didn't take it as a personal attack. Something like (as I saw in a similar discussion recently) "Oh, here's X again, creating drama like he always does" would probably violate NPA, but in the context of the discussion it wasn't unreasonable, it was just her opinion of my comment. Black Kite 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as the policy says there's no clear definition. I interpreted it as an "accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence" and other editor's have seen it the same way. It was quite obviously an accusation against a contributor not a comment on content. I can see no evidence to justify the response in what you wrote previously. It certainly wasn't assuming good faith and not a great way to repsond to a WQA and i think my short reminder (it wasnt like I was posting final warnings all over a talk page, it wasnt even a first warning, just a reminder that we arent here to start fights) was reasonable bearing in mind that. --neon white talk 11:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've made a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neon_white.27s_unhelpful_commentary_at_WQA so other eyes can review what I've said, and perhaps an administrator can get this message more effectively to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Leto and Tomo Milicevic have appeared in TV in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Doesn't Knapsack Fit In This. They are a band who fit in the emo artists page. BOTH refences clearly say, EMO BAND. And, why do you keep erasing A Static Lullaby, sure, they aren't exactly the best resources, but we all know they are emo. Have you ever seen their music video for Hang Em' High, they were 2x as emo as 30 Seconds to Mars Was In Their video for The Kill. Explain these 2 things to me in a good way. (please, im not trying to seem like a jerk, it just seems odd that these two artists keep being removed.)

I checked the references and there was no mention of it. Please check your references carefully. The article on Knapsack is as follows : -

Indie-rockers with an emotional core to their music as well as the requisite adrenalin rush, Knapsack formed around two high-school pals studying at University of California at Davis. Vocalist/guitarist Blair Shehan and drummer Colby Mancasola both grew up in nearby Redding, and in mid-1993 they formed the group, originally featuring guitarist Jason Bokros and bassist Rod Meyer. By 1994, Knapsack had released a seven-inch single on the San Diego label Goldenrod, and thanks to an incessant tour schedule, the quartet signed with Alias Records by May of that year. Their debut album, Silver Sweepstakes, appeared in April 1995, followed by tours with amenable acts such as Pavement, Jawbox, Drive Like Jehu and Rocket from the Crypt. After Bokros left the group, Knapsack replaced him with Sergie Loobkoff (of Samiam) and released their second album, Day Three of My New Life, in early 1997. This Conversation Is Ending Starting Right Now followed a year later. Further lineup changes occured in 2000 when Shehan left the band and joined The Jealous Sound.

• We cannot use the term 'emotional core' as a cited for emo as a genre. It's not the same thing. Other than that there is no other mention of the genre.

The article on Sky Eats Airplace only mentions 'metalcore' as a genre.

Sky Eats Airplane is a metalcore band from Texas whose style of music incorporates touches of electronica. Founded in 2005 in Fort Worth, TX, the band was originally comprised of vocalist Brack Cantrell and guitarist Lee Duck, who were both formerly of the band Our First Fall. Billing themselves as Sky Eats Airplane, Cantrell and Duck self-produced the full-length debut album Everything Perfect on the Wrong Day (2006), performing all the music themselves and programming whatever they couldn't perform. Originally released independently, the album was re-released in 2007 by Raleigh, NC-based indie label Tragic Hero Records. Shortly after the original release of Everything Perfect on the Wrong Day, Cantrell split from the band to start his own, Balance Problems, in which he sings and plays guitar. In the wake of his departure, Duck recruited a full-band lineup for Sky Eats Airplane -- Jerry Roush (vocals), Zack Ordway (guitar), Johno Erickson (bass), and Kenny Schick (drums) -- while at the same time retaining the touches of electronica that had characterized the band's music to date. The new full-band lineup proceeded to record the full-length album Sky Eats Airplane (2008). Released in association with Equal Vision Records, the self-titled album proved popular on the metalcore scene, breaking into the Billboard 200 albums chart upon its release.

You will need to find sources that cite the genre to add it to the list. --neon white talk 06:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR was for an unspecified length of time, although to be honest I'd stopped watching him because he seemed to be behaving himself. I've posted a friendly reminder on his talk page (which I think is reasonable because the block wasn't that long ago), hopefully he will take that as a cue to step back. Certainly, for æsthetic reasons his edits make sense to me, but we can't have him continuing to act like that. If he keeps edit warring in the next few hours (when I'll be away from the computer), you have my support for issuing a short block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, was talking about this edit. He's agreed to play nice now, so hopefully no admin intervention will be needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you keep deleting added genres? Keep adding dubstep/electronica and you keep deleting them. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and see the talk page. The consensus was to keep it broad and no made up or falsly attributed genres. Post-hardcore, metalcore etc seems to be the reliable consensus. --neon white talk 08:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you ask around, you will find the consensus is that dubstep is an acceptable and well-attributed genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that. Dubstep is a sub genre of the UK Garage scene. It doesnt have the slighest thing to do with this band, it's the opposite side of the musical spectrum which is why you wont find it in a source. --neon white talk 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the album you ignoramus. This is one of the songs from the album: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPS05Fbg84c . That's not dubstep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thats a commercial for an album and in no way typical of their music in general and No, that isnt dubstep. Regardless wikipedia is not based on unimportant individual editors personal opinions. Editors opinions are irrelevant. See WP:V. --neon white talk 10:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a commerical, and the music is a song off the new album. I have heard the majority of the songs from the album, and dubstep plays a big part in the new album, so Common Dreads should have dubstep as a genre. "Editors' opinions are irrelevent"... except yours I presume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to check out [dubstep]] and do further research into the genre for your own knowledge. This band and their music has no relation to the dubstep genre or scene which is why it cannot be sourced. --neon white talk 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done,and I still believe dubstep to be part of the new album. It also looks as though others agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time it doesnt matter what you or anyone else thinks only reliable sources. --neon white talk 09:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you contribution on Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library. I'm happy to wait until the matter is settled though I'd like to understand at what point you would advise this to be. As the WP:3O process has resulted in two third parties commenting, the WP:WQA raised by another user has been marked as stale and 8 days of discussion had occurred since my original edit, I thought it was okay to try editing again and would not want this to be seen as starting an edit war.—Ashleyvh (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, just don't keep reverting each other. When a consensus is reached it will be resolved. --neon white talk 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your comment on the talk page has been interpreted as justification to wait for an intervention by User:Kuru. BTW I make that 6 reverts of my edit by the same person, 3 under Binarygal and 3 under the IP 86.167.136.66.—Ashleyvh (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is and resolve the conflict first. --neon white talk 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Considering that Binarygal does not yet appear to be taking the WQA advice and 6,620 words have already been exchanged on the talk page about removing 4 external links, that I genuinely thought would not be that controversial (could not resist doing a word count), perhaps you can advise when and if an alternative resolution process might be appropriate to try as I'm not experienced in using them. In the meantime I'll do my best to keep to a light touch.—Ashleyvh (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent post from Binarygal is positively logical. Hopefully there will be no problem with satisfactory resolution even if the WQA stays stale. Thank you for your calm comments during the discussion.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Whilst I can see the logic of suggesting that Scramblecase is a sock of Collect (not saying the case is proven, but there is a reasonable cause to suspect), I'm less clear as to the potentiall link to Transity. Could you elaborate in the case. Otherwise, I suggest that we proceed with an investigation of just two editors. Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Swoopo. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a dispute about an entry on Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Would you agree to participate in requesting Wikipedia:Mediation - or at least agree to abide by the outcome? Please comment at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism#Mediation. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... but we're still not sure if that was an agreement. A mediator won't impose penalties, just will try to guide reaching consensus. (Though many of them are also Wikipedia:Administrators, who could impose blocks, I suppose, I don't think that will be the main method used.) Can you clarify on the talk page if you agree to participate, or at least abide by whatever decision is reached? --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that, but decided it would be better to go through them on a case-by-case basis, since some of them might be able to be rescued if references for it are found establishing notability. tempodivalse [☎] 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Normally I do a direct move, but this one was over a redirect and I know I can't do that myself. So, since you've templated the page, do I need to do anything? I moved the talk page too... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thanks for fixing my mistake and letting me know about it! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your last contribution on this article, and I just wanted to raise a couple issues here. I looked at the linked source, and while it's possible I'm missing something because of the limitations of the Google book view, I see what the source is saying as being quite different from what you added to the article. The impression that I get from the source is of a diversity of views on abortion, almost all of which stem from the root view that abortion is a bad thing and to be avoided, and that it is personally a negative deed for the person performing it. I'm particularly leery of seeing additions that say things like 'the Buddhist religion believes x', given the diversity of the Buddhist tradition, both in terms of national variations and doctrinal views. There was also this: "As Buddhists do not believe in imposing one's moral values on another, the religion generally does not support state restrictions on abortion nor does it specifically forbid it.", which is sourced, but which is contradicted by the book linked in the later addition which describes Buddhists and Buddhist groups as lobbying the government to not liberalize abortion restrictions on the grounds that it would make abortion more popular. I think it would be better to indicate the actual regional views reported in the Buddhist Ethics book rather than attempting to synthesize views that are meant to apply to the entire tradition- the book itself, for instance, highlights differences between Thai and Sri Lankan attitudes, despite the fact that both countries are traditional strongholds of Theravada Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contadictions could be noted but i didnt want an article on ethics to become an article on legality of abortion in countries with buddhist populations. Plus we cannot really say that the policies of governments of buddhist countries such as Thailand and Sri Lankan are Buddhist beliefs. It seems to be getting out of the scope of the topic. The passage " Rather than condemn abortion, the Buddhist religion believes in dealing with and reducing the circumstances which lead women to abortion." is supported in the book, on p332. I think the article needs to reflect more the idea that abortion is not forbidden in buddhism but it's negatively precieved on the basis that it is taking a life and that choices should be made on that understanding. --neon white talk 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author there is reporting the opinion of Ratanakul, whose remarks specify Thai Buddhists rather than Buddhists generally. The section on Sri Lanka, for instance, notes that there are "more frequently expressed objection[s] to abortion" and that Sarvodaya Shramadana, a Buddhist organization, is "radically opposed", and the section on Tibet indicates that attitudes toward abortion among Tibetans are very negative. Going from the source saying 'someone reports that Thai Buddhists feel this way' to 'the Buddhist religion believes this' is going beyond what the source says. I dug out my copy of Introduction to Buddhist ethics, and the impression it gives is very different overall as well; the early section mentions, for instance, that a monk will be expelled for being involved in procuring or causing an abortion, and that destroying a fetus is generally regarded as being equal to violating the first precept, that is, killing a living being. It's worth noting that even in the precepts and the monastic code the word 'forbidden' is never used; rather, the consequences for committing an action are just indicated. So, technically, you're not forbidden from killing people in Buddhism; you're just made to understand that it's a terrible idea. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the bit about traditional Buddhism, but aren't you going to back it up with some citations? TruthIIPower (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. See the BBC source. --neon white talk 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neon. User:Bonewah isn't sure if your comment on Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism#Mediation means you agree to participate in, or at least to abide by the results of, the proposed mediation. You're the last participant left who hasn't agreed to a mediation or at least said they wouldn't interfere. If we don't have everyone's agreement at least to that extent, we won't be able to get a mediation, so it would be a shame if you do actually agree, but we just don't understand. We know you're listening, we can see you editing other articles. So, please clarify at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism#Mediation. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need any particular editor to start mediation, i've given my third opinion and whether i comment on a mediation case will depend on time and whether i can be bothered. Ultimately the dispute has been so fragmented (perhaps deliberately so) that it's hard to say what specifically would be mediated. Informal mediation should be the first step. --neon white talk 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted some of your recent edits per WP:BRD. Could you please give your reasons on the talk page, and check the talk page archives so you can see the previous discussions. Thanks, Verbal chat

I posted an entry on the talk page prior to the tag, please look closer in future and do not remove tags until issues are considered resolved. --neon white talk 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has been discussed quite recently. Unless you have something new to add I don't think the tag is justified, and you didn't justify the tag you simply proposed a move (to where?) Thanks. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm sure you're acting in good faith. I've mentioned this on WP:FTN, and I hope I've not annoyed or insulted you. Best, Verbal chat 12:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the discussion is on again and that's why the tag is there. In fact my points are not based on the commonality of the phrase as previous discussion have centered on but on neutrality and the inherent negative value in the current title. There are more than a few issues with neutrality in this article. --neon white talk 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that you forgot to put the AFD tag on this article when you nominated it for deletion. This means that the article's regular editors might not have had any clue that it was nominated. However, since it had been listed for 10 days with no other "delete" !votes I closed it but please try to make sure that the tag is added to articles you nominate in the future. You might want to consider using Twinkle for your AFD noms, it does all that for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's just been closed "keep" by Stifle --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that there is no such thing as a Jewish nation is extremely antisemitic and defamatory. Drone2Gather (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isnt, it's simple statement of fact. There is no such soveriegn nation unless you count Isreal in which case nationality is Isreali. As far as we are concerned nationality refers only to the soveriegn state of which a person is a citizen of. --neon white talk 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not referring to the existence of a state. The Jewish nation has been around for 4,000 years. Care to prove me wrong? Please, no weasel wording, just address my question: is there or is there not a Jewish nation? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality officially refers to state citizenship. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) As the USA has a very strong national indentity, individual ethnic and religious groups etc are not considered nations. --neon white talk 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question directly, either with "the Jewish nation exists" or "the Jewish nation does not exist." Drone2Gather (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is irrelevant. I've pointed out the relevant style guideline. --neon white talk 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, a moment ago you claimed that it is a mere fact statement. Surely you will have no problem repeating it as such. You've pointed out the definition of "nationality" or "sovereign nation." Does the Jewish nation exist or does it not? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of fact that wikipedia does not consider ethnicity, religion or "quasi-historical communities" to be revelant in terms of nationality. End of discussion. Neither wikipedia nor my talk page is not a WP:SOAPBOX to promote your personal point of view on this subject. --neon white talk 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem fine with your own point of view as for "quasi-historical" communities though. Your wrote on the talk page that "we can be pretty certain [Jewish] isn't a nation." Why is it that you're right to defame a nation noted for its neverending struggle against haters worldwide, but I'm wrong to call your comment what it is – antisemitic and defamatory? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIVIL, if you keep up editing with a serious personal agenda i'm sure you'll find out. If you want to voice your religious/ethnic beliefs get a blog. This is an encyclopedia. It's based on verifiable facts not your personal theories. "quasi-historical" is a quote, hence it being in quotation remarks. Jewishness has never been considered a nation because a very loose historical link is the only slightly defined link and even that is widely speculated. Of course there has to be some link, but most such as politics, religion and ethnicity are only important to certain distinct groups. Who is a Jew? might be of interest to you. --neon white talk 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what that article is referring to, and there is no relevance to the current discussion. You are attacking a nation by denying its existence. I am trying to protect my own people from bogus claims. The article, to which you have linked, has nothing to do with this subject.

To quote this article: "Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used." Therefore, it is a nation (among other definitions). You are continuing to conduct repeated antisemitic attacks yet accusing me of breaking WP:CIVIL.

Finally, the Law of Return is based upon being identified with the Jewish nation. On the other hand, I would not agree with "ethnicity" as even here in Israel, there are several ethnic groups within the Jewish population – Eastern European, Western European, Arabian, Ethiopian, Indian etc. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you and left a note here. Thanks for your work on the wiki. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back. Please read Wikipedia:D#Partial_title_matches. --neon white talk 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neon white stop cancel Shannon and Tomo's pages. In the page of Tomo Miličević now there are a lot of sources, so YOU have to read still the guidelines WP:MUSIC. Shannon Leto has appeared in TV in addition to the band, in fact he is also an actor, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are significant and demonstrate any notability. The consensus was to redirect. use the talk page to discuss any changes. Insignificant Tv roles have absolutely no bearing whatsover on this. He fails WP:MUSIC and is even further from passing WP:ENT. --neon white talk 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tv roles of Shannon Leto aren't insignificat!! You, neonwhite, are very very insignificat!--87.6.183.202 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Quinn Allman, Bert McCracken, Dan Whitesides and other many do not satisfy any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. you are killing me!! don't revert my changes, because Shannon Leto and Tomo Miličević have to stay on wikipedia!!--87.6.183.202 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not an excuse, read the notability guidelines and if you want to question the consensus do so on the talk page. --neon white talk 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of nu metal bands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal bands (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your views and time regarding the issue I was involved with on the Wikiquette alerts page. Shinerunner (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The error was caused by your edits. I've pointed it out to you, but since you caused it, it's your responsibility to correct it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's any editors job to edit any article. Stop being petty and do it yourself. --neon white talk 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the articles says that they have two chart singles in the UK? Might wanna withdraw this one before you-know-what happens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified dubious claims. --neon white talk 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so dubious about them? The chart singles are easy to verify. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

acharts.us is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Dismiss it altogether. --neon white talk 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODCHARTS seems to disagree. Also, the official UK Singles Charts archives only goes back to 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a chart and there is absolutely no indication of verifiability. You can get further archives but they are not usually available to the general public. Why are you discussing this here? --neon white talk 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rapcore article cites 15 reliable sources, and several major bands have been credited as performing the genre. It's notable enough for its own article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A quick look through the sources shows only one that even comes close to make a description of a genre of music. One actually describes 311 as a rapcore band, one is a link to the Cotton Mouth Kings bio on all music definitely not "rapcore" as described by you or the article. Lets see another one is a link to rapmetal on all music which makes no mention of rapcore. And for the most part the rest of them are either broken or make no mention at all of rapcore. Ridernyc (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what i said in the proposal. --neon white talk 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. There is significant coverage of the genre cited in the article. Neither of you are even making an attempt to pay attention. This is bad editing, and the nomination clearly is bad faith. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is very little significant coverage related to this neologism and i am posting a warning about assuming good faith which you have not done. --neon white talk 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Seicer (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i didnt and i will template the regulars if i please. --neon white talk 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough people wasting time and bandwidth by complaining every time someone makes a comment they perceive as an insult. Please do not add to this by chasing down administrators, who are generally considered to be at least as conversant with the rules as other editors, who have made comments on my talk page, which are not about you, and issuing "Warnings"[7] about their clearly rhetorical musings. Note that while incivility is discouraged, harassment is a blockable offense. Please feel free to ask any questions here or make any comments here, I will watchlist your talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral guidelines exists for a very good reason, as a collaborative project wikipedia would fail without them, they apply to user talk pages as well as article talk pages, it doesnt matter who the personal attacks are aimed at, they are all damaging to the project, you are not exempt and neither is any other editor. Dismissing what was a nasty personal attack as a "rhetorical musings" is ludicrous (this is not the first time you have been dismissive about such attacks). While i understand that from time to time most editors make mistakes and may become incivil during difficult communications, your attitude towards other editors in this instance has not been great and it could br improved. Nobody is here to judge but to help editors improve. Please remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not failed to assume good faith, please remember to assume the assumption of good faith - or failing that, read the lingo entry for AGF.

Whether you approve of my manners or not is immaterial, however, the post was certainly rhetorical, and I know this because Seicer confirmed it was so intended. As I have no reason to accuse him of lying, I prefer to AGF and believe him. All that said, I will again note that the key point here is that you have now been warned for harassment, and I suggest you discontinue such behaviors, as it can lead to blocking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neon White,

I posted this thing trying to be as objective as possible. I thought that : - mentionning the excellent critics the game has obtained - linking to reviews from amazon stating large concerns about drm - citing as many sources as possible for those problemsthis would ensure that this writing was as objective as possible. I haven't invented the reviews on amazon.com, amazon.de, amazon.co.uk and amazon.fr, neither have I written all posts on various forums about this problem. I thought it would be fair to mention them, as it is fair to say that this game is otherwise acclaimed by majors game reviewers. If you think that parts of my edit are biased, despite my will to make it objective, then fine, just modify them. But I really think that there are too many negative reviews on amazon&co, contrasting with the general excellent critics this game obtained, to simply delete this point. It would be another kind of unobjectivity to just delete this paragraph, as it is FACTUAL that the game obtain really bad reviews on commercial websites from angry customers. I'm personnaly a fan of the serie, and have already bought the game, so I don't think that I should be accused of beeing partial/boycott prone.

Anything added to wikipedia requires reliable sources, these cannot include self-published sources. Remember this is an encylopedia, not a review site, we are only interested in the views of professionals, bellyaching from random amazon customer's are of no importance to an encyclopedia. Unless a reliable sources mentions costumers reaction it is original research. --neon white talk 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Left a message at the MCR talk page for you. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to redirect Joe Trohman to Fall Out Boy without trying to preserve any of the content, then you might as well send the Trohman article to AFD. A redirect without a merge is a de facto deletion anyway, and an AFD discussion will hopefully get more people involved. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing worth keeping on the page. A redirect is not a deletion the page and it's history is maintained. An afd is unnecessary for a simple merge. --neon white talk 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think readers are interested in having some background information on the guy? It's all sourced. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its well sourced and non-trivial then add it. --neon white talk 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'd rather not merge it to the band's article, because that would look awkward. I think the Trohman information is fine where it is. I'd only merge as an alternative to deleting the information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, I started an RFC at Trohman's talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that you need to learn some compassion becuase you are generally not very nice and often come across as a dick. You dont seem to have many friends so I was wondering if you wanted to be one? =] Gamer9678 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THESE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM reliable sources which satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD

NEWS OUTLETS SOURCES : PRWEB[8]

NEWS.COM.AU [9]

They clearly stand for reliable sources and multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Regarding PRWEB: News outlet that works with distribution partners such as Yahoo! News, Google News. Regarding NEWS.COM.AU: A widely known Australian news outlet.

DestroHolmes failure to see the changes may not be the most reliable point of view given to the fact that his edits and alleged clean up selectively erased the reliable sources. Please note that his edits worked more as surreptitious academic protectionism than acceptable encyclopedic criteria. What kind of concensus can we have if only DestroHolmes makes all the decisions?

Regarding recent edits by User:Absolutemetazero the present version does NOT have issues with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, nor citation problems and rather it was reverted (diffs here) because it had been consistently suppressed by DestroHolmes. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not arbitrary deletion by one person such as DestroHolmes who seems to be defending Benjamin Grundy's interests instead of respecting encyclopedic guidelines.

I want to publicly denounce DestroHolmes and his attempts to suppress this page and its complaints of online fraud despite the addition of reliable sources. Furthermore, I want to publicly question DestroHolmes's real identity as a a possible acquintance of Benjamin Grundy or as Benjamin Grundy himself.

The edit war with Tonkacres/Zhenboy/Destroholmes was deliberately started when Benjamin Grundy and Aaron were sent private messages on facebook notifying them about the changes on Wikipedia and in less than an hour (Australian time) the edit war had started.

DestroHolmes then proceeded to block the accounts and then acted as expected: started protecting Benjamin Grundy.

The page was then subsequently changed by DestroHolmesin a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the evidence of possible online fraud in the section "Breach of contract" DestroHolmes was clearly manipulated to show how biased his views were.

The main purpose of the edit war was to draw DestroHolmes into making arbitrary decisions and cast light into his surreptitious academic protectionism and abuse of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines by blocking users and making personal decisions to delete a page he has a conflict of interest with. Unfortunately for DestroHolmes his editing history clearly show his protectionism towards a podcaster involved with online fraud. Should wikipedia rely on DestroHolmes as a supporter of online fraud?

Please feel free to compare his edits since now it is too late for him to change them or cover his tracks.

This page should not be deleted because it has consistent relevance to the Wikiproject Podcasting as well as present and future Podcasters interested in avoiding the same pitfalls Benjamin Grundy went through. Benjamin Grundy did not respect acceptable business practices and all his listeners were lost due to accusations of Online fraud and numerous complaints.

Lastly, allow me to ask a logical question: Which one has more value?

A)Mysterious Universe and its possible case of online fraud where victims stated the events. B)An inane internet meme such as "Raptor Jesus"

Both are facing deletion yet only one has relevance to Newmedia and Podcasting.

If an article such as "Raptor Jesus" finds space in Wikipedia where does wikipedia take its cues for credibility? Furthermore, does keeping "Raptor Jesus" as an article make Wikipedia different from Uncyclopedia's "Raptor Jesus" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Absolutemetazero

Since you cleaned out the article I have been watching it and keeping it clean. Some actual improvement has taken place tiny but progress. Well now someone has shown up replacing all the old content with insanely bad sourcing. I've tried explaining things to him but he has no clue how to source information User_talk:94.210.222.154, and I'm just going to end up in a constant edit war with him. Ridernyc (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TotalPoliticsCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Talk:Crawdaddy! in the talk page section created for discussing the issue tags. I think one or more issues may have been corrected since the tagging and it is unclear to me what specifically is still considered problematic and why. I'm willing to do some improvement but there needs to be some useful comment on the talk page to help with that. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Kendrick.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neon white! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Brian Brivati - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]