User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Duffbeerforme, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! ☺ Spiby ☻ 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Twomey Senior.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. I have previously uploaded some other WEG posters and they're also under the same criteria so I'll have to take look on the web for some better images to replace them. Cheers. Crickettragic (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tool discography

In your revision of this list, you stated Opiate (EP) had no singles. I'm not totally sure, but our article for Opiate states otherwise. If you know this to be fact, please correct that article as well. Best regards, Lara❤Love 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since October

I Don't see why you have to delete Since October. Their is enougth information on that page about them. I mean yes it would so much better if their were more people helping me on this then just me and three other people. But i'm trying the best i can with this page. Their is no need to delete. I going to try my best on this page. But more help would be great thank you.Skateremorocker (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave McRae

It would be greatly appreciated if you could e-mail me at info@davemcrae.ca for your reasons in adding the deletion nomination of voice artist Dave McRae.

Rich Houston public relations Dave McRae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.97.163 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

DC Tonic

Thanks for fixing the prod. I was rushing through a ton of proposed deletions for related articles and made a few boneheaded errors. -- Atamachat 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Joe Kleon

This article meets notability guidelines. Do I need to cut and paste them here? Just because I know the subject, does not mean there is a COI. The section I added is as neutral as the article, as it was written by Gwen Gale. There are no mentions of advertising on any part of the article. The subject meets notability guidelines in many areas, with many areas of his work. What is your problem with this? You do a lot of editing. Why not help improve the article, or at least add suggestions, instead of tagging it and running? Doesn't Wikipedia want you to help those new to the project? Aren't you supposed to help new articles develop? There are many sources, from daily newspapers, magazines, etc. I fail to see what your notability problem is. From Wikipedia: ""Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral." My edits are as neutral as the article, writeen by experienced sysop Gwen Gale. Are you saying she was wrong for removing the notability tag? The article you created on the "Sweedish stoner band" Greenleaf has no sources at all. The Joe Kleon article has more than 20 reliable and notable sources. I do not understand your "logic." Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Disgustipated

The deletion was overturned due to the lack of discussion, lack of reasoning given and the lack of discussion of either side. If you wish to convert it to a re-direct then please put the AFD up again and have the discussion according to the wikipedia guidelines so that this article can be fairly dismissed. The song is rather signifigant and there's a lot of information that may warrant a new page. Either way though, a good discussion on the talk page would be better than an arbitrary deletion due to no one seeing any discussion and possible ignorance of the rules from everyone in this. Klichka (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mere Theory

If I received explicit permission from the band, thier manager and the record company, would I then be able to upload those images in the discography section without including a critical commentary of the album?


thanks, 05kinjac (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that question. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Afd nomination for Mystical Sun

Hi there. Just a friendly reminder -- if you nominate an article for deletion it's customary to notify the page's author or major contributor, in this case User:M-sun, about the discussion. I did it for this one. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vroomtone and hoaxes

Hi. FYI, following up on our earlier discussion: per WP:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes, hoaxes are officially not grounds for speedy deletion. Actually, that sounds extreme to me: if something is already known factually to you to be a hoax, because you've already read about its perpetration and its debunking, it ought to be a speedy-delete issue. But if you just assume it's a hoax based on the nature of the article, it makes sense that the deletion should be posted for consideration by others because they may know something of which you are unaware. (Hoax or no hoax, vroomtone would have been deleted anyway, of course, because even if it's real and even if becomes notable in the future, it isn't notable now! WP:CRYSTAL.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the speedy deletion page, WP:CSD, which says Hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, great, a contradiction. Well, that's what makes life interesting. Good to know, because some of these articles sure don't merit five days' consideration. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kyle Reimers.png

Another editor editor tagged it as a CSD G10, another issued you a notice for CSD G10 and no hangon was on it. A living person depicted as a stick figure might not be considered lighthearted by everyone and very likely not agreeable with WP:BLP. — Ѕandahl ♥ 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joe J Thomas (actor)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joe J Thomas (actor), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe J Thomas (actor). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CyberGhostface (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild (band) (2nd nomination)

Hi Duffbeerforme. Just wanted to let you know that I added sources to this article, which might address your concerns at the AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

just a quick reminder

when nominating articles for afd, don't forget to remind the article's creator and top contributer. Tools like Twinkle can set up automated scripts that put a notification on the page creator's talk page. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Flying Emus

I've no idea why I added that, but removed now.--Grahame (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Tjupi Band

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tjupi Band, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tjupi Band seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tjupi Band, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Buckethead task force

You are invited to join the Buckethead task force, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Buckethead. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

--Say Headcheese!--hexaChord2 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lost City of Malathedra

I may have found some reliable sources for The Lost City of Malathedra. Could you please take a look here for coverage in what may be reliable sources. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lost City of Malathedra. --Eastmain (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to you and yet still the pages that I edited have been penalized and the artists are suffering. Please respond to my comments on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helioprmedia (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Trevor Adamson

A tag has been placed on Trevor Adamson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, 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 musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nuttah (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Ilkari Maru

A tag has been placed on Ilkari Maru requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, 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 musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Flewis(talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

YoYo Records

Just a friendly note on YoYo Records. I declined the speedy and sent it to AfD instead, because it was at AfD last year with some keep !votes. Feel free to put your two cents in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YoYo Records (2nd nomination).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crutch (film)

I believe your concerns have been addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Owl City

I removed your prod flag from Owl City after I added a link from an independent outside source (an album review from AbsolutePunk.net). If you want to run this article through the AfD process, please feel free to do so. I think it's a borderline case. travisl (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amunda

I have nominated Amunda, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amunda. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. OliverTwisted (Talk) 11:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your hard work is about to be deleted from Wikipedia

The article you created, Amunda is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

  1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
  2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
  3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
    Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
    Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
  4. You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. travb (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Amunda

I'm happy to concede notability on Amunda with the additions you've made to the article. I've posted the sentiment to the AfD as well. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dom Mariani

Its been sitting in my sandbox as there a still a lot of blanks relating to different periods in his life and more importantly I haven't referenced the various pieces of information that I have included within the article. I guess I like to try and make sure any article that I create is not just a stub. If you want to add/make any changes then you are more than welcome. Dan arndt (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:AFD

Just a friendly suggestion, when you add an article for deletion, please notify the article's creator. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Legends of Motorsport (band)

A tag has been placed on Legends of Motorsport (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Rae

Your comment on the Jamie Rae article makes me curious. What award did you win? - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor, unimportant details. It's one you have probably not heard of. I probably overplayed it's chance of making me notable but the yea but have you done betta comment annoyed me. I'm not interested in my own article here and know the basic criteria are flawed in that they let the maybe technically notable but will soon be forgotten to be here. My name will be always listed as having won the award, but so what? I've done things since that are more important to me but mean nothing here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What's up with you?

I don't understand your recent moves. Back in July and August 2008 you worked on some Buckethead and Deli Creeps related pages and voted against deletion of the Deli Creeps' main article. That's why I invited you to the Taskforce when I started the project in November. You didn't even respond. Now you simply go to Category:Buckethead songs and nominate all entries for deletion, throwing them into only two discussion bunches, regardless of their individual notability. And that, after your poor attempts of getting them vanished without much noise failed about a week ago. Can you explain it to me?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to your invitation, it was rude of me. I nominated these articles because there is no indication of why these songs are notable. Non notable subjects should not have articles. I voted to keep Deli Creeps as there was a goood, valid reason for their notability. Yes, I erred in bundling them too much. My attempts at making them vanish earlier is consistent with nominating them later. The redirects I created were appropriate and suggested at WP:MUSIC "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The ones I proded had diambiguated titles so where not a feasable search term possibly making them not useful redirects. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I really should have known better...--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI...

Regarding [1]: When you remove the Google hits plus the example, the statement about cyberculture of course looks like OR. If you think it can be better done, do it. (see: {{sofixit}}) BTW: Do you only come here to terrorize Buckethead articles? What has he done to you? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Partialy adressed at the articles talk page. I'm not fixing it because it is clearly original research. Claiming the song is an integral part of cyberculture is a huge leap from what the sources say and is something I simply do not believe. I did not come here to terrorize Buckethead articles. I'm just trying to fix Buckethead related content. Articles that do not belong, make false claims and are made up primarily of original research do not help. Maybe you should have another look at wp:v and wp:nor. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It's kinda strange that nobody else is seeing that. And the article has had lots of hits the last few days. Really strange. I might award you a barnstar for your tireless attempts in removing content from Wikipedia. Or annoying people, or whatever. The "integral" might be a bit nasty, yes. I removed it until I've made a deeper research through some of the hundred thousands of Ghits.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should have another look at wp:v and wp:nor and try to avoid making personal attacks . Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it is a personal attack to have a different opinion - ok... That closes every discussion... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion that i am only here to anoy uyou is a personal atack Duffbeerforme (talk)

The pages about HURT (band)

Are you saying that these pages above are more notable than a band that has been heavily researched???

We've had this discussion with someone else; JUST BECAUSE THE INFORMATION ORIGINATED FROM A FORUM DOESN'T MEANT THAT IT'S NOT RELIABLE! Have you checked the links yourself? Most of the info we get has been through interviews conducted by other sites, that had the same feelings as you, that the band wasn't notable enough. As such, we've archived the interviews to the forum.

Also, deleting the pages, Hurt (Self-Titled) and The Consumation is a major point in this discussion. Those pages were based off of an interview that one person conducted. He had no other place to put it except the forum, this way it could be cited for the specific use of being on Wikipedia.

I hope that you take the time to reflect on what you delete from now on, because face value of a link isn't quite enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EOA3928 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 March 2009

What is a reliable source is something defined at the link provided. I don't know if those other article are more or less notable but that does not matter, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. A superficial look at the first, Happy slapping shows very many independant sources. Do you really think that Fuck is less notable? Seriously? Such a question says a lot about your credability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how notable it is. The point is that is some of those pages are useless, and make this site look like a joke. Do we need a page about the process of Reading? No. Because if someone doesn't know how to read, then they won't be reading it. Besides, you're reading while reading about reading. We don't need that article. But they're there, despite how useless they are. What makes breadcrumbs more notable than a band with a history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EOA3928 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It does matter how notable it is, see WP:N. How notable is reading? If you really don't know then look at the Bibliography, the Further reading and the external links. The article on breadcrumbs is a poor article. That said find me a good number of people who honestly don't kow what breadcrumbs are and who do know who HURT are and I will withdraw my position. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you're not reading the citations. December EP links came from the bands official website. Not notable enough? Apparently the band's information FROM THEM isn't good enough. You're vandalizing now, and trying to get back at me won't make you feel any better. EOA3928 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The bands official site is not independant of the band. Please don't make false accusations. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, this admin has determined that this level-4 warning is baseless and unwarranted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Have a look at this discussion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD edit

Please be more careful when adding articles for deletion to the listing page. this edit managed to transclude the entire AfD info page onto the listing page, because you entered an incorrect file path with [edit] as part of it. --Terrillja talk 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, stuffed up there. I shall try to be more careful. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Please consider archiving this page. It's a pain to scroll all the way up and down.Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

done Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian merge

Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DeSoL

They did indeed chart on Billboard, see here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jake Spencer

Removed the cat Indigenous. Not cited reference and seems unlikely from his photos. ROxBo (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake, I misread a reference Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Your edit to Lisa Moore

I have reinsert original mention of unplanned pregnancy and added a reference to address your comment about a unsourced assertion. BTW the article referenced is a link on Lisa's own website. Try Google the article name. Hoping this sort things out Chrisfromcanberra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

The Majority

You're welcome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J Williams.

Please do not add nonsense edits unclear comments to AfDs as you did at [2] and the last part of [3]. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-17t22:51z, -- Jeandré, 2009-05-28t20:28z

[4]
It's better to plainly say what you mean - discussions on improving an encyclopedia vs the tone on most messageboards. Sockpuppets shouldn't matter: 200 useless keeps should be ignored by the closing admin if there's one good delete reason given. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-28t20:28z
Thank you for your reply. Less sublty shall happen from me. More importantly you suggest that the sockpuppetry from a heavily involved editor appears to have NOT influenced the result in the AFD so should be put aside for now. (specifics of what you say may be different but the result is the same, I support a result for good reason) Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the exclamation image before. Good advice from Philadelphia: "Explain it to me like I'm a 6 year old".
I'm not saying the possible sock votes didn't sway User:King of Hearts, I'm saying they shouldn't have. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t07:43z
The suggestion from an independent editor involved in the discussion that possible socks shouldn't have swayed the result was good enough for me to believe the closer hadn't accidently missed something. The poor behaviour in the afd prompted me to look again. I shall remember the editor involved but I expect it all shall end here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Craig L. Russell

Another editor removed the {{prod}} template from Craig L. Russell, asserting (but not demonstrating) notability. Bongomatic 04:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Thank you for that notice. The article is now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig L. Russell (software architect). Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

David Blatherwick

You are invited to revisit the article and perhaps consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you for a chance to affect a decent rescue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisited and withdrawn. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the encouragement. I knew in the back of my mind that little benefit would be gained by engaging the baiting, and I'm a little disappointed in myself for taking it. Hopefully the rest of the community will see it for what it is. Thanks again, and cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved bad change

A statement advising possible legal action is not a 'threat.' The statement simply says, 'legal action may be required.' A clear fact. M. Bialastoki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbialastoki (talk • contribs)

re Jan Sramek (economist)

 Done, thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambigram edits

Before you go doing lots of edits on a page, you might want to review discussions on the talk page. All of the stuff you removed has been discussed, sometimes at length, on the Talk page. Some of the included items are based on explicit, consensus votes. If you disagree with those decisions, I suggest you bring them up on the talk page, rather than just removing things on your own.

You might wonder why the votes (or !votes, if you prefer). I know it's a bit unusual. There was one particular editor who deleted about a third of the article on his own and refused to accept anyone else's opinions. I created discussions on the talk page so that consensus could be reached.

I'm on vacation right now, so I didn't look at all of your edits very closely, but, basically, they go against consensus and I think they make the article worse. For example, links to the sites of the earliest ambigramists are certainly appropriate. When I get back home, I'll take a closer look.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Roy has a history of acting like he WP:OWNs the article and becomes extremely aggressive if anyone dare to disagree with him. The "consensus" he talks about on the talk page generally consists of him declaring things to be so and then getting meatpuppets to come along and support him, and then also broadly interpreting anything anyone said as supporting his own views even if that clearly was ot the case. He (and some others who showed up once or twice there to drop some spam links) have very serious WP:COI problems with the article and probably shouldn't even be editing it directly. For example, Roy's currently at the National Puzzler's League convention, which is where all the trivial NPL stuff in the article that makes no sense comes from. He has also admitted being friends with a number of the people whose sites he insisted on linking or who made "examples" he insisted upon including.
I would support all of your edits, except I think that the dmoz link should stay; it's standard WP:EL practice to link to a single directory site to cut down on linkfarming, removing all of them would just encourage more people to drop bad links later. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have seen his ownership issues along with his clear misunderstanding on consensus and his lack of understanding of wikipedea policies. I have seen your attempts to point out the obvious to him and his dismisal of such attempts. Aggressive owners do not stop me. My changes to EL are the only changes I made and I see as questionable. DMOZ seemed to me to be close to a social site, that opinion may be outside consensus and is so reverted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you two make up lies doesn't make them true. I follow Wikipedia policies. I get consensus. I don't have any meatpuppets (if anything, your collusion here makes you two look like meatpuppets.) I happen to be a subject matter expert, which is something I'm confident neither of you can say (among other things, you show your lack of knowledge when you refer to DMOZ, the "open directory project" as a social site -- before making ridiculous claims, perhaps you should do a bit of research).

I have no COI. My interest is in improving the article. I didn't put in the NPL information. In fact, I pruned it, moved it later in the article, and added a reference for it. I also wanted an example, but the consensus was against me. You can see this in the talk page section that DreamGuy deleted in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy (yes, I know you "archived it", but archiving active content that you did not write is effectively a deletion and is against policy). I certainly think the shortened information on the NPL's use of the term is appropriate (and I think it is better than the alternative, a link to the NPL page, because the NPL page does not discuss puzzle terms).

I do not think that I own the article, but I have spent a lot of time improving it, digging up references, and working to get consensus on what was appropriate for the article. No, I do not appreciate overzealous editors who think they know more than a multitude of other editors, including experts. You argue that it is inappropriate for me to propose a change on the Talk page, wait some time for feedback and then make the change. Yet somehow it is perfectly appropriate for you to make massive wholesale deletions without any attempt to get any feedback or consensus whatsoever?! The record clearly shows that I am a good consensus editor.

While Duffbeerforme is new to me, I am well aware that the vast majority of DreamGuy's edits are deletions, that he frequently edit wars over a wide variety of articles, that he has been banned numerous times, and that because of his edit warring, he has agreed to a 1 Revert rule. I think it's pretty clear who the problem editor is. Why not spend time adding to Wikipedia instead of just deleting things? And why don't you use your real names? Are you hiding your own COI? RoyLeban (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy who was caught lying about vote counts over and over again to try to present a false view of consensus when it was actually against him is calling other people liars. That takes chutzpah. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry and Wilga Williams

I think that there'd be a case for them both being notable in their own rights. Perhaps there could be an article on their collaboration as a duo at the current page and a separate page for The Country Outcasts (assuming they are notable)?The Hack 12:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Petrick

Oh, please. He's one of the seminal ambigrammists. He's referenced prominently in three books, including Hofstadter's. He did the Angel logo. RoyLeban (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to show his notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, he's one of the seminal ambigrammists, as you can see in the three referenced books. He's referenced prominently in those books. He did the Angel logo, used on millions of album covers by the rock group Angel. Is there something else that you're looking for? RoyLeban (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some indication that those references contain significant coverage of Petrick or some real indication of his notability. Or that his artwork on "millions" (really??) of album covers make him notable. FYI, I have had nothing to do with the AFD. I tagged the article and intended to give it some time for it to clearly show notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes on millions -- Angel used it for quote some time, like ten years. I don't have any of the albums myself, but still. RoyLeban (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

URDAD article

The process is in the public domain, has been published in refereed research papers and is further enhanced at the University of Pretoria which has a number of active research programs focusing on this open, non-proprietary methodology with a range of open source tools being planned to be developed.

Have added more context which should clarify the topic as well as categorization. Would like to request that the article is not deleted. User:FritzSolms 11:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I did remove prod you put on articles I edited, and called it vandalism, because the sources used for references are reliable, they do establish very clearly the notability of the subjects. I, and other editors, have been editing and adding more references to these articles constantly, and will continue to do so until the AFDs are closed. I did call your actions "vandalism" because you deliberately go out of your way to "just" nominate articles I've created, or edited, for deletion. Seem more like a personal vendetta than good editorial work.Bech86 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim I just nominate articles you have created is clearly not true. I nominated four other articles not by you that same day. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
My claims against you are absolutely true. Nominating four other articles for deletion did not keep you from nominating ALL of the articles I created or/and edited over the past year for deletion as well. Which of the sources do I consider to be WP:RS? For a starter having links to stores only establish the verifiability of a commercial release. All reliable articles on albums, singles, EPs on Wikipedia do incorporate stores as sources for references. The same goes for reviews and interviews. All of the sources I used for references in the articles I created or/and edited, most of them reviews, interviews, stores, and yes blogs, are reliable, verifiable, third parties sources.Bech86 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not all of the articles I nominated were by you. Not all the articles you created were nominated. I did not nominate Vinyl Life, My Tronic, Nu Nite, EP (Nite Club EP) or Nite Club. You claims are clearly false.
Read through WP:RS to get a better idea of what are and are not reliable sources. Blogs are not. Product listing in shops are not. User edited websites are not. Self published sources are usually not. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User edited websites? I do not think it is the case in my articles. Discogs, official websites are ALWAYS used in the link section or/and used as sources for references in articles. And about shops, how can you explain how all articles on albums, singles, EPs on Wikipedia do contain links to stores (iTunes, Amazon, etc.), among other sources, to help establish verifiability? Bech86 (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"ALWAYS". Not true. Yes it is often used. Neither contribute to the coverage needed for notability. Neither should be used without independent reliable sources. Some (not all) articles on albums, singles, EPs on Wikipedia do contain links to stores because editors add them. They shouldn't. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
and undergroundmusix and Discogs are user edited. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
They sure do, but Discogs is used as a reference for verifiability, and in the link section, in MOST articles on musicians and commercial releases in Wikipedia. Just like Allmusic. Bech86 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is used (even if it is not a RS so maybe should not be) but it does not contribute to the coverage needed for notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that it does not. But it helps with the other sources to establish it. Bech86 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Puppetry

Seeing that I use sock puppets? What do you mean I use sock puppets? That is a completely false accusation you're making. I am Bech86 and that is the only user account I use to create and/or edit articles in Wikipedia. Where did you get that incorrect idea that I'm using sock puppets? Bech86 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This accusation of puppetry from last year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bech86, is incorrect. I didn't create those, to get extra vote or anything like that. Bech86 is the user account I have used from the very beginning in Wikipedia. I'm very upset about being accused of this. All I ever wanted to do, and did, was to just edit and/or create articles (with ONLY my Bech86 user account) on, mostly, New York City-based musicians. I think I did create and edit good articles, and frankly seeing my work being completely dismissed is very upsetting and insulting. I am quite aware of the fact that it's nothing personal, and that your actions were NOT personal vendetta, but I can't help feeling upset. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say to you. Bech86 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Long time gone. I over reacted. Withdrawn comment on socks. Yes I can see why you would see what has happened as insulting. That is not my intention. My communication skills online are far from the best. I have been trying to improve wikipedia. In my eyes removing badly sourced content is an improvement. I saw these articles as badly sourced. That was not intended as a slur on those who thought they were good sources. Just my understanding of reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand and I know now that it was not your intention, you were doing what we, editors, are all trying to do. Improve Wikipedia. Speaking of improvement, Would you be interested in working with me on improving the quality of my articles and their sources? I think I did write good articles and about relevant subjects. I don't think they should be deleted but instead better sourced and expanded, and maybe one of them should be merged. Is it too late to save them, and maybe move them to my user page, or maybe yours, as subpages and keep editing them, sourcing them better until they meet WP:Music? I would also like to work on other articles I have an interest in with you if you are interested. Bech86 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        • A good place to look for help in improving your understanding of wikipedia policies is at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the tip. It is very useful. Bech86 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Nobody article

Sorry to contact you here, but thanks for your help and advice on improving this entry. However it looks like WaltonSimons1 is extremely determined to debunk everything said and have the entry deleted, regardless of the fact that we can source the original newspaper and magazine references to verify the entry. I'm not quite sure how to proceed from here, so any further suggestions would be appreciated!DSK1984 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do either of you have access to a scanner. They could be scanned and uploaded somewhere. Even without the actual articles, referencing could be greatly improved by getting the papers or magaizines dates or issue numbers, the title and the writer of the article, and the page numbers. This would greatly improve their verifiablity (a policy Walter appears to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting). Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't but I'll check if Andrez does. Stay tuned, and thanks!DSK1984 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, Andrez is going to email me through jpgs of the original articles/reviews, so we will have the evidence though I noticed the deletion notice is now gone.....DSK1984 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Anthony Jay

Why have you marked one of the refs as "not in citation given" for a second time ?? I realise why you did it the first time but then I replaced the ref with a better URL. It shows 'Milan' by Richard Anthony Jay on the playlist and if you click the MORE button at the top, it explains what the playlist is. So the ref is entirely correct. Burningpetals (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not getting that. I tried again just now without the #/ in the link and am getting the playlist now. However it says something different to what is in the article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Iboga Records

Hello Duffbeerforme, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Iboga Records has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - a quick search (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Iboga+Records+%22&cf=all) indicates the label has released some notable albums - will improve sourcing ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Phatchance

Hi there Duffbeerforme, I just thought that I'd let you know that a user, Stevezimmy, has removed the PROD template that you placed on Phatchance, which is most definitely within his rights, and if you still think that the article needs to be deleted then you should discuss the article with Stevezimmy first, and if that can't be resolved then list it under Articles for Deletion for group discussion. I advised the user to follow procedure and place a deprod notice on your talk page but it appears that he didn't, so I wanted to give you a heads up. C: DreamHaze (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that notice. Due to the quacking of the "new" editor (who has removed artists with articles from lists of notable artists calling them NNA (guessing Non Notable Artists) where I have started said articles (revenge?)) and the lacking of independent reliable sources I am going straight to AFD. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
see also previous effort] Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan--it can just as easily be solved in AfD, and I have a feeling that you may be right on this article, especially after seeing the previous AfD vote. He listed some articles on his talk page that talk about this artist, but I don't know how reliable they really are. DreamHaze (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know the removal of NNA was not a revenge tactic, I infact had no idea you'd placed those artists into the category, I was simply editing based on personal knowledge and after visiting the stubs (or lack thereof) of the artists mentioned, if you check my contribs I've been cleaning up a lot of local Australian Hip-Hop Articles, that's how I found the original prod notice. I was not targeting you through those removals, apologies if you thought I was. If you made the primary articles I left those in place, but have since prod notified two since I feel they fail to meet WP:Music, judging by your user contribs (over which 80% are delete prods) I would assume they don't fit into your framework of notability either? Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the artists you removed have articles here, suggesting they are notable. If you think they are not notable you could test that at afd. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mishavonna Henson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mishavonna Henson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aspects (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Little Nobody entry

Hi there, and thanks for your words of advice yesterday - which seems to have coincided with a freshly frenzied attack by old friend Walton. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Little_Nobody), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DSK1984). This dude is exhausting!  ;-) Will get Andrez to get you the material, though he keeps telling me just to delete the entry. I just don't want Walton to win, given his motives here. whats the best way to organize this? Upload to yousendit or something? Thanks as usual!DSK1984 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I was finally able to get Andrez Bergen to send us the digital records of a lot of those article/reviews mentioned in the entry on Little Nobody and you can download the set HERE http://www.megaupload.com/?d=T4B96ZLG If you prefer not to download, the folder is 39MB so I am not sure how to get you this. ;-) I hope this helps to make every body satisfied and we can take a break!DSK1984 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I shall download the files and take a look. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your help with this is really appreciated - thank you! DSK1984 (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Masonia

I've restored Masonia per your request at WP:REFUND. Probably a good idea to add the charting info quickly. Enjoy!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I should have started again from scratch. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RHCP

Thank you for taking the trouble to contact me. While I'm surprised that there are no sources for many of these individual songs, I'm satisfied that there is some discussion happening around the merges. I hope this isn't causing too much extra work for people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

question about tags

Hi there, quick question about the Sied van Riel page which I have created, saw that it was tagged and I have updated the page so if you could check it again and see how it looks. Thanks Ilir S. Ilirs (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, what I see falls short of wp:music. The closest it come is with the coverage in independent reliable sources. Only #4 looks good enough for that. The award looks minor for notability purposes. From what I've seen he is probably notably but it is not yet evident here. (all my opinion). The DJ list suggets further coverage (eg DJ Magazine). Finding and adding that would strengthen this article. Re the COI, do you have a direct connection with the DJ? Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
PS, removing tag is not a way to show good faith and is likely to result in more scrutiny. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Alright, I will try and find more sources if possible. And no direction with the DJ, just a fan. You want me to message you when I add them? Ilirs (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Edit- take a look at it again, added 7 new references. Please let me know what you think. Thanks Ilirs (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

inthemix link looks like it could be good, I'm removing the tags. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks, appreciate the quick responses :) Ilirs (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Pump

You can call me Dan - no need for the Mr. it makes me feel older than I am. I have had a look and the main problem is that there are not a lot of references (internet accessible) on bands from Perth around that era. I am still working up articles on Cinema Prague, Charlotte's Web and The Waltons - all of which are probably more notable than Love Pump. In saying that I'll try and see what I can do but am not promising any miracles. Dan arndt (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dan - we have a lot of Waltons material and want to start an article on them too. Happy to collaborate on this. Visualising (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

copied to Dan's page. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Jon Appleton Entry

Hi, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I hope I am following correct procedure here. I am a former student of Jon Appleton and created his new page to honor his recent retirement from the college. I used a text he wrote for his website and have tried to cite sources as much as possible, also encouraging Jon to write as objectively as possible. There's no connection with an Emprintes Digitales maketing effort. I don't understand the notice for deletion. Can you help me understand what needs to be done here, if anything? Thanks a lot! Ray Guillette My Website

Musicyogi (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, I have withdrawn the nomination to "article for deletion" discussions (wp:afd) so that notice with most likely be removed soon.
Longer answer, The text you wrote lacked coverage from independent reliable sources (wp:rs) and I didn't see a solid claim of notability (wp:n). If someone is not notable, they should not have a wikipedia article. Regarding the references used, wikipedia is not a reliable source (anyone can edit it and add false info, that false info is not always spotted and fixed in a timely fashion), cdbaby is a comercial site and so is not independent and should not be used, 500sound is a commercial promotional site (not independent), both digitalmusics.dartmouth.edu and thedartmouth were the organisation he worked for so are not independent. Jerome Kohl has since the added a reference to The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which is an independent reliable source, one that is good enough for me to acceptAppletons notability. While notable, the article as it stands appears to be mostly original research (wp:or) so most of the content needs to be sourced or removed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web

Have finished the draft on Charlotte's Web - to the best of my ability (given the limited reference sources). Was wondering if you could have a look and make any suggestions on improving it before I post it. Dan arndt (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For you, but of course. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouted

Picture of big trout what slapped me removed for space.duffbeerforme (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For this AfD. Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing Patrick Wilson's Page

Why are you challenging that link. We have been supporting this page. Other editors have let it alone and other pages include links like this. The rule is not an absolute.

It is a link to a fansite so should not be used. That is a good enough reason. There has no good reason this page should be an extremely limited exception, especially considering this article is a biography of a living person. Other pages should not include links like this. Also you "should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent" duffbeerforme (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive_1&oldid=1142979708"