User:Peter Fleet/old discussions

A talk page dump

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Buckingham Big Love solo.ogg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckingham Big Love solo.ogg. 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Zephead999
I could use some help with this guy on the MCR article, he is absolutly refusing to cooperate, or even be civil, and has broken the 3RR. Zazaban 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Johnson
Hi, you left a comment on my talk page regarding the proposed deletion of the aforementioned wiki page, however I am not too sure as to why you have done so; any help would be appreciated in clearing this up. Thanks Tiburon 03:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Music genre
Hi and thanks for the alert. I think I've realized what's happened: the infobox had been set to use for the background color and  for the text color -- i.e. back to front -- and I switched them without noticing. I think I can set AWB to switch "color=" and "bgcolor=" in the pages affected, so shall I give that a try? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies too for forgetting to update you. I imagine you've realized that soon after your alert User:DH85868993 mentioned an idea which I was able to use with AWB to sort out the color parameters. At least, I hope they're all fixed successfully, but there may be one or two that didn't quite work out. If so, they should be the exception and straightforward to amend. I'm glad you spotted the change as it's something I wouldn't have noticed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. The reason is here and I've left messages about it in the "Template:Infobox Music genre" thread here, to which I'm awaiting a further reply. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that user has some strange edit history? Copyvio uploads resulting in a block. I think their undiscussed revert of the work done on the infobox should be undone. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be okay if you restore the working version rather than me and give him (I think he's a him) the reason in the edit summary. It might also be worth repeating it in the thread on his talkpage. Sorry about the hassle caused. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheredes School
Hi Peter, thanks for your excellent work keeping the vandals at bay from this article. Just as an FYI, it really is located on the unfortunately-named "Cock Lane",, as you can see here! Best, Gwernol 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knew? Thanks for following up. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay!
Pro comma ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the late reply. I do not go near my computer on weekends. I have read and voiced my opinion on the formatting issue before. My views seem to follow the majority. I do not look at Wikipedia very much and that is not a major issue with me. The edit you noted was actually me following up on the edit history of a user named RattleAndHum who doesn't read any talk pages and edits based on his own opinion. His edits usually contradict previous discussion and I was following up an a few of his edits to make sure he wasn't ignoring prior talks. I do not like the infobox looking like a receipt from a supermarket so I changed that one page to a comma spacing. I think they should all follow that but there is one user who keeps edit warring that it should be the other way. I am just ignoring him and editing how I feel. If an actual constructive discussion comes up again on the topic I would take part. Otherwise I am not going to pay any attention to it and just edit the way I always have. Peter Fleet (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please mark an edit as minor only if it genuinely is a minor edit (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, as you did here, is considered rude. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Adding or deleting sentences or paragraphs in an article is not a minor edit. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's checked by default and I forgot to uncheck it. Besides, removing soapboxing isn't rude regardless of whether it's marked minor or major. Just as long as someone deletes it. Peter Fleet (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Outlook club
I've relisted this AFD, which you contributed to, as there were some new sources added close to its scheduled end time. Can you please have a look again and note whether your opinion has stayed the same or changed? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy
See talk page. I think were is correct, the other Lizzy deserves its own page dealing with the modern cover band;
 * nothing fanboy about the were and are. I am afraid I do know something about the group. The group currently tourin g need their own page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mis interpret my interest. Where do you get the approved by his family and what does that matter?

Please use citations. The page is totally misrepresents the history of the group. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They tour under the name Thin Lizzy. It's as simple as that. Removal of factual content is vandalism on Wikipedia. And you will be blocked if you knowingly remove factual content from the article and replace it with your own fantasy version. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you assume I have a fan interest which is pejorative. Assume good faith and deal with the real issue. The page is lop sided and presents an unbalanced history of the band. It is purely promotional.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the talk page there should be a separate page for the cover bandOpiumjones 23 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They aren't a cover band. They tour legally under the name Thin Lizzy. End of debate. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation for that? Did you book them? Did they write any of the songs they play ? Come on

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * www.thinlizzyonline.com. Says nothing of being a tribute band anywhere. Just Thin Lizzy. Lynott was a songwriting genious. But he is dead. Little Feat Still tours without Lowell George. Canned Heat still tours without Blind Owl and the Bear. The Doors toured under the name Doors without Morrison. Thin Lizzy still tours without Lynott, and with Philomena's blessing to boot. Wikipedia can't judge what they are. Just report the facts. If you want to make a fansite. Find some other place to do it. Vandalizing Wikipedia isn't the correct route. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bands own websites are not a good Wiki source. I note that none of your edits add info. You are pushing a lot of opinion here Peter. Use citations from independent sources. Mammy's are not good sources either. The article is what is at issue here and it is not balanced and info is not given its correct weight. Nothing fan about that. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here. The article has multiple issues, as stated in the tags. Above all, it's just not very good. It never was. That said, the present touring band is a continuation of the original Thin Lizzy, which at one stage contained 4 members who were there while Lynott was in the band. It still contains 2 members recruited by Lynott, Sykes and Gorham, and Gorham was a member for 10 years. There'll be no separate article for the current line-up. I have a lot of source material available and I'll work on the article over the next few days. Anything you guys want to add, please do and we'll go from there. Cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Therefore the current group warrants a paragraph at the end. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the meaning of this post you left regarding the removal of the fan site link on the Thin Lizzy page: no fansites allowed without discussion and consensus How can consensus be gained to add the link. thanks Wildonelynott (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also corrected the official Thin Lizzy website link so it now points to www.thinlizzy.org rather than the current touring bands website which is a totally different animal. Taking onboard previous comments written in here you appear to have taken your information from an incorrect source (www.thinlizzyonline.com) that site is not the bands official website. If you read the official Thin Lizzy site the band actually broke up in 1983, the official website states: Thin Lizzy played their final show on September 4 at the Zeppelinfield in Nuremburg, Germany. This leads me on to your re-editing of the photo at the top of the Thin Lizzy page, the band pictured is not Thin Lizzy it is the current touring band, therefore I have replaced that photo again with the most up to date photo of Thin Lizzy available. Wildonelynott (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Late reply to email
I apologize for the late reply. I have been busy skipping from one city to another for the past few days and I am only on for a short while. As for the crufting of the Thin Lizzy article it looks as though it has been taken care of. BretonBanquet is an old Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and a good editor. I am sure he can maintain neutrality and get across that the band is still active as Thin Lizzy. As for the Classical Guitarist Project merger I am waiting to hear from other members from that project first. Just so no noses are un-jointed. I know a couple of key WP:G members that would likely have some great ideas for project page content. But I have yet to hear back from them. I think it's a very possible joint venture which makes perfect sense for both projects. But I am already behind on some project tasks that I have put off due to work/travel commitments. Congratulations on the barnstar. It is well-earned. Again, I apologize for being absent for the guitar project items. I see you have been away for a while yourself. Summer is like that. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking in. I believe the merger of the two projects will only benefit both. It looks like membership is scattered. I see lots of activity with lots of users following the original plans. But everyone is editing solo and not feeding back to the project page on progress. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Action metal actioned
Thanks for the heads up, ip blocked and edits reverted. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, if I'm not around you can easily take it to AIV with a note that they are a block evading sock of {vandal|original ip}} . The admins can then quickly compare edits, and take the appropriate action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the weekend, perhaps they are editing from home when before it was school/work? I see that they have cottoned onto not using the edit summary to try and hide the edits for a little while longer. If it isn't blocked, I haven't checked, then it will be interesting if it is used for another attempt. If they are throwaway addys then there is indeed little point in blocking unless you catch them in the middle of a run, but if any address returns... have them hit with the banhammer! Thanks for looking after stuff (and, yeah, if you stick around here long enough you start getting a fuller understanding - it just takes some folk longer than others! (grin) ) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

About Taken By Force
I'm not sure why you removed my edits from the page on the Scorpions' album. The guitar solo on The Sails of Charon IS based on Phrygian dominant and there ARE certain chromatic notes in there. Can you fill me in on why this information is not being allowed? This is my first time editing Wikipedia, so it's quite possible I may be unknowingly violating some guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.66.195 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removes Links from Chuck Berry entry without giving a proper reason
User removes Links from Chuck Berry entry without giving a proper reason. The intention of these Links is to supply the reader with in-depth details of Chuck Berry's career which the Wikipedia article is not able to supply.
 * I quoted the policy that your website violates. If you want to add your personal website somewhere, go add it to the open directory resource. Not Wikipedia. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These are not personal websites. They have been created by the fan community. You still have not given concrete details of a violation. Either list all Chuck Berry websites or none at all as External Links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.200.26 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fansites, including yours, are not allowed on Wikipedia. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just where is this stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.200.26 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also fan sites are listed as References in this article (example: Reference No. 13).

Also "Wikipedia has a rule saying that one fansite may be included on the terms of the fansite added being the highest traffic around. "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. "" => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.J.Sagnella/RuneScape_Fansite
 * There has been no discussion/consensus over what 1 fansite would be tolerated. And even then, WP:EL prohibits direct linking to any site that contains copyvio material. And 99% of all fansites contain copvio material... most are built strictly on content used without permission. Peter Fleet (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

removal of positive description of "hair band"
Can you clarify why you removed the phrase "affectionately by many fans" from paragraph that discusses the term "hair band"? Is it simply the lack of a citation, or is it more than that?

Thanks MoiraDetroit (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See
Note what's changed since September 2007 for this wikiproject. Although a few additions have been made to the members list, the project page shows little activity after the first month of the wikiproject's existence. As is noted at WikiProject Council/Guide, 
 * A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. A WikiProject, in other words, is a central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. It may develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.

These things aren't happening here. I've marked the wikiproject as inactive. Members might consider creating a Wikipedia:Userbox under Category:Musician fan user templates as an alternate way of expressing your interest in The Who.. 67.101.5.75 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Before i came the project was inactive, it was a dud before that vandalised the page okay. My point is go and ask the members of the project what they think of it instead of trying to block me okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You were correct to contact an admin
The project is active again if you wish to carry on with your ideas on how it should move forward. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Information on Ron Tabak's death
Hey there,

You had reverted my additions to the page for the Canadian rock band, Prism, based on the fact that I had obtained the information from a blog. I located the same information on a different website, and posted that one as a reference instead. Hopefully, this new website is "fair game!" Let me know if there's any problems.

Matt


 * See WP:EL. No blogs. The site is blacklisted. Peter Fleet (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from linkspammer
Can you explain the meaning of this post you left regarding the removal of the fan site link on the Thin Lizzy page:

no fansites allowed without discussion and consensus

How can consensus be gained to add the link.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonelynott (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Post on the article talk page. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Christgau's reviews of Black Sabbath albums
Please do not revert the Black Sabbath album pages that I have removed Robert Christgau's reviews from. His reviews of these albums does not add value to the page as the reviews are too short to provide any real insight and the letter grade is uninteresting as Christgau reviews for an audience that does not generally listen to Black Sabbath. I would greatly appreciate the consideration. marnues (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. His reviews are accepted ny WPP:MUSIC. It is OK to include negative reviews. It is not a fanpage. It is a neutral encyclopedia. All views must be included. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't revert as I'm not interested in a war. I am also not interested in making the article into a fanpage.  However, all views need not be included.  My grandmother's review would look roughly like Christgau's.  I can accept his review of a band like The Beatles, another band that I really enjoy.  Whether he wants to provide a positive or negative review is fine and should be included on the album's page since he is a well regarded reviewer in that area.  Christgau is not a well regarded reviewer when it comes to bands like Black Sabbath.  Have you read the review?  I find it difficult to even use that word.  I don't mind that he doesn't like the music, but if he wants to write a review, he needs to write an actual review.  I'd go on, but I bet I need to take this fight elsewhere.  I hope you can at least understand that I am not upset that he wrote a negative review of an album I love, but that he failed to write a review of an album that he would never willingly listen to, yet his opinion on the album is given importance. marnues (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Criss
You removed an image, KISS_cat_face.svg, from the Peter Criss page without an explanation. I got it from Wikipedia commons and believe that I did so properly and that it was used appropriately on that page. If I added it improperly I would like to know since I am fairly new to Wikipedia. J04n (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The make-up image is OK in the article if it has decent text to accompany. But the infobox image needs to be the best quality, most recent and free-use image of the artist's actual face. Not a cartoon. Hope that helps. Peter Fleet (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the actual face is preferred but thought the cartoon was better than nothing. J04n (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PRS Guitars
Hi, you removed my edit "Matias Kupiainen of Stratovarius" in the PRS Guitars page. Please don't remove it again. Stratovarius is quite well known a band in the Europe and it has released many successful albums in the past. Matias Kupiainen (although strangely not having an own wikipedia page) is also a known guitarist featured in albums. Please remember that english wikipedia isn't only meant for US/Canadian folks (and bands from those regions)!

Garage Inc.
The reason why I made those changes is because "cover" no longer works on Infobox Album. See that template's talk page for details. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it shall be corrected to compilation. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just double checked and cover is still a valid option in the wp:album guidelines. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But "cover" results in studio. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. The main wp:album page has not been updated to match the /doc page. My priginal post stands then. Peter Fleet (talk)

Allmusic
"By previous consensus, when there is conflict over genre content, allmusic is not to be used as it has been declared non-reliable as a source for genres on Wikipedia"

It has? Seriously, if it has and you could show me where this was decided, I'd probably worship you as a god. Oh that really would make me so happy...In truth, the reason for my reverting of that user's edits is because he's adding non-reliable sources and giving too much weight to certain sources. But if it turns out allmusic really has been declared unreliable, that would be one hell of a bonus. Prophaniti (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it before looking through the wp:rs talk page archives. It has also been mentioned at the wp:music talk page and archived there somewhere as well. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric Burdon and bands he has been associated with
Hi Peter, Why would all the bands Eric Burdon has played with be reverted back to the Animals and War? Surely these are part of the Encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia? I feel that it would be like saying anything Paul McCartney did would be reverted back to the Beatles? etc--Tunebroker (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's detailed in the article. Non of the entries will ever have their own page. They would all just be re-directed back to the main Burdon article. The rules for the field are changing quite frequently lately. But being more direct and avoiding re-directs is still emphasised. Plus, it makes the box too long. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric Burdon and influences
Sorry to bother you again but I really care! What is overkill about using many influences? In my opinion genres such as blues and soul are far too broad when, an artist such as Burdon is developing his material. Otherwise most artists would just have Rock 'n' Roll roots. Much as I hate to say it, the Oz Clarke wine approach of catagorisation in music, is of value! To me it would also be like saying Sting was only influenced by Rock 'n' Roll and new World and this is neither encyclopedic nor understandimng of the many subtler influences which make an artist like this great and pertaining to the subtlties of cross over influences. Oh and this is meant to be a meaningful encyclopedia ie: indepth anyalisis?

I am sorry if I offend your editing skills, but I have found Wikipedia extremly inconsistent with what it appears to be achieving. The Performing arts are a challenge, but fine detail often differentiates a good artist from an exceptional artist-in an encyclopedic way! Thanks for your attention, I look forward to your comment--Tunebroker (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline for the field is "aim for generality." A few notable sub-genres that have had prominent place are acceptable. But sub-styles of sub-genres is overkill and goes against the given rule for the field. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

List of thrash metal bands and your actions
Firstly I have given a detailed reason for my removal of the speedy at Talk:List of melodic death metal bands as there still seems to be some misunderstanding as to why I removed it although I thought my edit log comments were sufficent to adequetly explain why I did it. Your actions since I removed the tag are somewhat worrying to me. This edit seems strange and looks like a way to get a sympathetic to you admin to look at my conduct without notifying me. Additionally the AfDs of John Doyle (guitarist), Iwan "Iwcs" Roberts and Iwcs a Doyle are of concern to me as you've never previously nominated an article for deletion and one of these articles was one I'd previously saved from speedy and the other two closely related. Although their nomination is perfectly in line with policy I am somewhat worried that these and your other post may be part of some incivility towards me as a result of our disagreement and such actions are against the spirit of wikipedia. I apologise if this is not the case but I'm sure you can see the reason for my concern. A explanation of your actions would go a long way to reassuring me that I have imagined any incivility on your part. Dpmuk (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is all just your imagination and I have not been uncivil in any way. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to explain the coincidences then. I'm trying to assume good faith here but am finding the coincidences a little too unlikely to accept at face value without explanation.  Dpmuk (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusionists are the scourge of all quality on Wikipedia!!!!
I missed you post. An admin has nom'd the list for AfD. If you are a Twinkle user it is easy to use the Twinkle xfd tab to nominate useless pages for deletion. And I encourage you to go ahead and do so as often as possible as there are hundreds of thousands of articles that should never have been created on Wikipedia. Most band lists being just one small part of the larger 'useless article' picture. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna give you a present if you help me out...
Why did you think that? What gave you that feeling? I've got one too. Scarian Call me Pat!  00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they're different people. Had a CU run. Scarian  Call me Pat!  01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply I have been traveling away from Hobsonville for a few days. Thank you for the update. There were strange similarities linking the 2 editors. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I wouldn't consider it as vandalism. It's just OR. I thought it to be true. Going to look for third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservoman (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits "appear to be vandalism"? Well, maybe by someone who doesn't do research. The information came from an easily available, and well known book by Andy Babiuk entitled "Beatles Gear". I was simply trying to improve the article from its erroneous status, but if I'm going to be accused of vandalism then forget it. When George began with Beatles in Hamburg he was playing a Selmer Futurama, not a Duo Jet as this wiki article indicates. It's examples like this that explain why wikipedia isn't viewed as a credible source by professionals. Sorry. I won't make that mistake again. Leave it incorrect. I already know the correct history. HM211980 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the true vandalism was the removal of my additional information, which is accurate and well sourced. HM211980 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me
Why did you revert my addition of one of the instruments that John Entwistle played? It's a genuine instrument, and is in the album credits, the Jew's harp.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Live Wire (Motley Crue song) -- genre
Please see the relevant section on this article's talk page. I won't edit the page until I receive your response. Helltopay27 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will re-read and comment later. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Liar
Wht you reverted my edit in article Liar (Queen song)?--Ole Førsten (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting talk pages
Hello. I know that User:HM211980 has been editing disruptively again lately, but it is not cool to revert someone else's talk page, and it's especially not cool to call it vandalism. A user can blank his own talk page if he wants. If he starts up again, his talk page can be tagged again, and he can then be taken to WP:AIV. Thanks.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But in this case you were right to restore the warnings on his talk page. Because of his continued disruption to Wikipedia all the warnings on his page were still needed to quickly show other editors his true colours. Keep up the good work. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am editing constructively, as always. HM211980 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When making the case at WP:AIV, you would show the difs from the talk page to reinforce your complaint. Reverting someone's else's talk page and calling it vandalism is wrong no matter what.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You can revert trolls as often as you wish, even on their own talk pages, just don't call it vandalism. A quick edit summary saying 'reverting a**hole blanking' will do. (or something similar) Showing tolerance and AGF to trolls just results in more trolling. So hammer 'em whenever you see them. If a user is persistent/busy issue a test 2 and a test 4 at the same time. If they vandalise after a test4... report 'em. (of course you know that already... you've been here forever) :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice but I've been here a long time and I never second guess any warnings I issue. The user talk page had warnings which were recent to their negative activity and it is bad form for user to try and hide their past so soon after they were warned. It is fine for a user to archive and leave an archive link available for other users to see. But blanking is ignorant while the user is still actively trolling Wikipedia. (which that user was) That user should be blocked indefinitely. Libs you are always quick to joke that you are never wrong. But in most cases you aren't. You should be an admin. I respect your decision to refuse the nominations. But you would be a terrific admin. (and I know you know that too) Peter Fleet (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am making edits of accurate information and they are being reverted with no reason. I am adding interesting detail to articles. I don't understand the problem. Why isn't my information as good as others? The label of vandalism is thrown around pretty loosely. I'm not vandalizing, so why should my talk page be filled with those accusations?  I could just easily accuse others of vandalizing if I disagree with their edits, but I don't do that. HM211980 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For your hard work

 * Thank you Libs. Very humbling. I would have felt better had I been able to save the classical player project. I don't edit very often. But I appreciate the "token" Peter Fleet (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have found that some of your comments are off base. Specifically, claiming the additions I made to articles regarding the Beatles instruments were incorrect, or worse, vandalism. Please be certain of the validity of such claims before correcting or posting to the talk page. See the disccusiion page, if interested. Thank you. HM211980 (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Eric Clapton sound files
Hi Peter: Do you have the knowledge of the subject to identify which of the 11 sound files should be retained? Probably three or four might be acceptable per the WP:NFC policy. Please see the talk page. Tony  (talk)  05:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a lot. I will comment. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)