User talk:AORmaniac13

Welcome
Hi, AORmaniac13. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Wikipedia that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!

For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Wikipedia. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Wikipedia cheatsheet may come in handy.

Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation


I noticed your submission in Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stakkattakktwo. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.

Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is verifiable.

Here's an example of how to add references: Chzz is 98 years old.&lt;ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. &lt;/ref>

He likes tea.&lt;ref> Smith, John. " Interview with Chzz", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22.

== References ==

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also, Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, just put at the end of this page, followed by a question or get into our live help chat chanel at.

Best, ChzzBot IV (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arch Rival


A tag has been placed on Arch Rival 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
 Hello AORmaniac13, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

---Thebirdlover AORmaniac13, good luck, and have fun. --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! — Jonadin( talk ) @ 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Grande-Rock.com
Hello. I hope you are having a nice time on Wikipedia. I wanted to contact you concerning grande-rock.com. I question the relevant information being added on Emerald Forest and the Blackbird, because I don't believe that grande-rock.com has had notability established yet on Wikipedia; with that said, that does not mean that it's not notable, it just means that the site is not established as either yet. For instance, what kind of coverage has the website received from elsewhere? You may be interested in a discussion with similar circumstances about a different website, here. Thank you. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not good deleting entries that have the notability and also the blessings of the band itself. This is pure censorship... can't you see it? Grande Rock is been online for over a decade when most of the webzines that exist now weren't even a thought. What "established" mean... and by whom? Grande Rock has the coverage of the bands, the labels and the musicians that have been working with and are promoted by the specific ezine. It does not need anything else. What's you identity and you remove notices so easily without any thinking? What are you? What's notability? Is wiki a place for your beliefs? I do not care for your beliefs... you cannot delete any info from articles because you believe so... What's this? Are you the Info Police? Wiki has tones of trash info but you do nothing about it. My sources are notable and true... and helps the bands. You beliefs is for yourself... keep them away from the music... Hard Rocker 13 01:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll say this: Wikipedia has guidelines, such as those that concern notability. Keep in mind that I never said grande-rock was not notable, and that I was only skeptical of its notability. You may be interested in a page concerning review sites, and/or bring up a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. I'd like to say that you should assume good faith when dealing with other editors, such as myself; likewise, I don't believe you're acting in bad faith. Wikipedia is not a place for my beliefs, as expressed by point of view guidelines, and I work for the betterment of Wikipedia, and not for the advancements of myself or my opinions; I do not have alterior or selfish motives. Also, about the "tones [sic] of trash info" that I supposedly do nothing about, what examples do you have of me overlooking what obviously needs fixing? Since you rose a complaint, I will not remove the grande-rock references, since my opinion by itself might be insufficient for this decision. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not good deleting entries that have references and helps the promotion of a band... we are not talking here about beliefs but for real info. And by deleting a specific entry twice does not show good faith. Some other volunteer from here... put himself some references form Grande-Rock.com in a few articles... obviously he knew exactly what he was doing. I do not think that any kind of censorship helps the situation here. As for the junk/fake info (I wasn't referring personally to you but in general here) I personally have fixed many times entries that were fake... and believe me I do not gain anything from this... I'm doing the dirty job and I help you and everyone like you getting paid and keeping the site alive and efficient. I'm the last person I will play tricks when it comes to music... and I take things seriously... although I'm trying for a couple of months to add an article here but it seems that's not quite good for wiki... and that's really bad. Hard Rocker 13 23:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, sourced content usually shouldn't be deleted. As well, Wikipedia is a place to display encyclopedic information, not for promotion. I'm not a censorship monger, like I'm being portrayed as here; I was keeping Wikipedia guidelines in mind while removing it. We're obviously having a conflict of interest, and that is why I have not removed your recent entries on Emerald Forest and the Blackbird. Sometime within the next few hours, I'll bring up grande-rock at the WikiProject Albums talk page, and see what others have to say about the website; while I'm doing this, I will make special effort to be neutral and impartial. I'm sorry if you feel inconvenienced by my actions.


 * PS: I have also done my fair share of cleaning around this place as well, and I have not gained a cent from it. While not everyone may be interested in editing Wikipedia, I personally enjoy it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Feel free to post your opinions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums here. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The Foreshadowing Second World.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Foreshadowing Second World.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wrathchild STAKKATTAKKTWO.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wrathchild STAKKATTAKKTWO.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Sabaton Carolus Rex.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sabaton Carolus Rex.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning review sites
Hello. Feel free to read and supply commentary to this discussion concerning several review sites. Thank you. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Grande Rock
Greetings. Are the reviews on Grande Rock written by professional music critics? If not, then they cannot be added to the infobox (see WP:REVSIT). They can, however, be added to the external links section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mac... We have talked about this issue a long time ago with other Users from Wiki. Grande Rock is being run by fully professional editors/musicians who use to be in big printed magazines in the past. They are over than 30 years old... and the Editor in Chief has a previous experience in 3 printed magazines. In the end, Grande Rock is a pro ezine that has more than 10 years life... and all the known bands that have been interviewed all these years are making it what it is... as well as the visitors' love.(Hard Rocker 13 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC))


 * Fair enough. I didn't actually see the issue being resolved anywhere (at least from what I've read), but it's not a huge deal to me. Just wanted to hear your side of things, so no worries. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the problem with getting your article approved is because of its predominant reliance upon the Grande Rock sources for notability. When it comes to reviews, popular mainstream publications such as Kerrang!, Rolling Stone or Guitar World are pretty much guaranteed to grant music album articles an indisputable degree of notability, followed by Allmusic or staff reviews at Sputnikmusic. Those are just some of the more universally recognised sources on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the current Allmusic page for Stakkattakktwo has not yet had a star rating given to it by one of their professionals, so I don't think it can be used as a source at this point.


 * Furthermore, as far as online-only ezines are concerned, the problem is that—regardless of anyone's opinion—if they're not on the list of approved professional review sites, they simply aren't going to be acceptable as professional reviews within the infobox. As I said, your dispute appears to have gone unresolved, meaning it wasn't approved in the end. If you genuinely feel as though it should be, you'll have to be proactive and keep trying until someone takes note of your rationale. I would suggest to make a new post there, explaining the background behind Grande Rock (as you've done here), and if you don't get any responses, try messaging some of the regulars on their talk pages.


 * Best of luck. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think... that I'm trying to prove that I'm not an Elephant. When some of the best/praised bands/artists out there are being interviewed by Grande Rock... and some great labels are cooperating with the specific ezine, I do not see why someone's opinion from here should play a vital role. The subject was opened in the past and there wasn't no response. Neither positive or negative. No one, especially, that has nothing to do with music, can decided. The bands, the visitors and the labels make the ezines or webzines what they are. As long as it is done by the rules... to question an ezine that been around more than 10 years is not good. Then most of the later ezines or webzines should appear nowhere around the web. The professionalism of a site is more than obvious... take a look at the design, the site... we're not talking about a blog site that some kids are running it. The guys here are some of the most known rock/metal guys in the scene.

As for the article, I've see worst articles being approved... so something isn't working as good as you say it is. No problem by my side. I'm not gaining anything at all. If you do not wanna approve an article then it's OK. I can't do anything else especially when lots and lots of articles are not good and informative and getting approval very easily.(Hard Rocker 13 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221(talk&#124;contrib) 19:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wrathchild_STAKKATTAKKTWO.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Wrathchild_STAKKATTAKKTWO.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can accept this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Stakkattakktwo then the image will appear there. I can't understand why the vollunteers here do not accept this article when there so many others articles that's not well-written nor notable at all. Why??? Anyway... (Hard Rocker 13 20:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Stakkattakktwo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And signing as someone else will get you blocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you have a major problem dude. This is my signature for almost a year now. I have changed my username after I joined wiki. It's something a lot of users do. Hard Rocker 13 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your signature
Please add a link to this account to your signature, or sign using the name of this account. WP:SIGLINK. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * try using (go into Edit this section and cut or copy the code):

Hard Rocker


 * -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)