User talk:Andre666/Archive 2 (2010–13)

Slipknot Project Roll Call
In an attempt to breath life back in to the Project I am arranging a Roll Call and will begin making arrangement for group initiatives throughout the coming months. Just so the Project can keep an updated list of people who continue to contribute to the Project a Roll Call will happen from time to time. It is understood that over time, users may have lost interest in the Project or Wikipedia all together; if you have, it's no big deal. If you would like to keep contributing to the project please sign the list here. If you do not add your name to the list by January 16, you will become an "Inactive member", this will bar you from voting in the AoF, as well as receiving the monthly newsletter. Remember, if you ever want to join the project again, you are always welcome!!!  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Oasis
I reverted what you did on the Oasis template because what you did had no justification. The band is now defunct so all band members should be on the same level. Zak Starkey has never been an official member of the band, and it is better to have the related articles organized, therefore easier to navigate through. If you have a good reason to change anything back to your way, please don't do so without asserting a very good reason. Iminrainbows (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for this "shouting". I was not trying to make myself seem "above you" in any way, I was pointing out the truth about these members of Oasis and I simply believe that major edits shouldn't be made without putting forth a good reason. And I'd also like to point out that these "negative comments" are the 9 bad edits out of the 1,000+ edits I've made on Wikipedia, the personal attacks aren't necessary.
 * Thank you, -Iminrainbows (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

consensus
I set up a consensus section in the talk page for Battle Studies (album) to resolve a dispute. As u have edited this artice in the part, would u mind commenting? Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot Project - AoF voting now open
Voting for the next Article of Focus from the Slipknot Porject is now open. You are invited to vote on which article you think the project should focus it's efforts on based on nominations from project members. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slipknot/AoF to vote and find out more!  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
When making edits, could you please add an edit summary so that other users can understand your thinking, especially when you delete whole sections of an article. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Andre666subpages
Please note that your owm subpages, such as the pages you nominated at Miscellany for deletion/Andre666subpages, don't need to be nominated at Miscellany for deletion. In stead, just place a db-user on the pages, and some admin will delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Painface
Hi Andre666! There's currently an AfD discussion ongoing about an article to whom you've been a main contributor, see Articles for deletion/Painface (2nd nomination). A question has been raised of whether it deserves a separate article or should be merged into Slipknot. Anyway, a user has expressed that he wishes to verify the article's content with further inline citations and maybe it "might make it clearer that the mentions are not just in passing and therefore this subject merits a separate article". I'd be happy if you could tell us (or me) where you got the information about the band from, when you inserted it here. Thanks for your help. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Maashatra. As you can see, the edit to which you are referring was made almost two years ago. As such, there is no way I could remember where I got my information for the article. It was most likely metal-archives.com, as that is my go-to source for many similar articles. Sorry I could not be of more help. Andre666 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks for responding ! :) Maashatra11 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 Southampton F.C. season
Hi - congratulations on a great job so far.

Do you think there should be a mention of the club banning press photographers from St. Mary';s; it did make most of the national papers as well as the BBC? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think so - I don't think controversy has any importance to a season article. Maybe in the main club article, but that thing is a state anyway. The death of Liebherr, for example, affects the fixtures etc, but the controversy does not affect any elements of the season. I find that "general information"-type sections in club season articles are discouraged anyway, as this information makes up the general history of the club. Andre666 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll leave it up to you. It's good to have someone interested in the club active on WP. As you can probaably see, my interest is mainly historical. There was some good stuff in the last two match programmes covering the earliest years, so I may start the season article for 1885-86 soon. Cheers.    Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should create an article for that season. The current standard is that the first season article for a club should be the first in which they entered an official competition, so for Southampton it would be the 1891-92 season, their first in the FA Cup. An 1885-86 article would not be notable enough. Andre666 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see at Notability (sports) that it says "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article." On this basis, I will create an article covering the years 1885 to 1891.  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Sword
The article The Sword you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Sword for things which need to be addressed. Zeagler (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look the edits I made today and let me know what you think/fix whatever you don't like. —Zeagler (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox song list
Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OiL notability in dispute
Hey there, friend -- seems we have a bit of a difference of opinion on the issue of notability regarding the pre-cKy band oiL. Clearly you've done a lot more around here than I have, and I'll respect that, but I have to protest on this issue. I strongly feel that OiL deserves its own page every bit as much as Foreign Objects does. OiL is its own band with its own sound and style, and as such deserves its own page. The band (cKy) has said this themselves in numerous ways on numerous occasions (the "Then and Now" page on their site or reading through their "Ask CKY" section will serve as references to this). They have even said that the true beginning of cKy did not come until Chad Ginsburg joined the band, and with the exception of their last demo at the Groundhog studio, Ginsburg had no hand in oiL. I think a lot of people are under the impression that oiL was just a pre-cKy phase, but this is not the case -- it truly was a completely different band. As far as popularity is concerned, there are countless examples of bands with pages on Wikipedia with much less popularity than oiL. They released at least five EP's/demos in their time, and with cKy's current success, oiL has become well known amongst cKy fans.

I really hope you'll reconsider on this issue. When I first came upon the oiL (band) page the other day, it was a mess -- one paragraph, no sections, no InfoBox, but I've been trying to whip it into shape, as there's more than enough material to do so. I started working on it two days ago and would really like to continue to do so, so I'm going to undo your redirection change so that I may proceed with completing the page. If you still feel strongly on the issue, redirecting the page is always an easy change to make, but I hope you will give me a week or so or at least a few days to complete the page and show its worth before deciding to do so.

When it comes down to it, there is simply too much information on the band oiL to reasonably integrate into cKy's history page, as I hope you will see over the next few days as I continue to work on it.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tron55555 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the message. While there may be some information on Oil, it will not satisfy the Notability (music) guidelines, and I strongly doubt there will be any reliable sources to use for the article. I don't make the rules, but I am happy to enforce them. Oil does not deserve its own page, as the band never released anything on a major label or anything similar. Just check the notability page, the article fails instantly. Don't waste your time. And if you want to work on the article anyway, it is not right to do so on the actual page; please use your own user page (you can set up a sub-page if you like) to experiment. Thanks. Andre666 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a change to the page before reading this, so I cancelled that and restored it to the redirected version based on your feelings on the issue. One of the changes I had made before restoring the redirected version of the page was the addition of sources for the information on the page, and I think there might be more than you think:


 * http://www.ckyalliance.com/band/index.cfm
 * http://www.answers.com/topic/cky-band
 * http://www.inhifi.com/wiki/index.php/Oil


 * In addition to these, the Ask CKY page provides a great deal of sources in the form of questions that the band members themselves have answered regarding their time as oiL. I have read plenty of them, and would seek them out to use them as sources if the page was going to be used.


 * You mentioned looking over the Notability (music) page. I had done that prior to beginning my work on the page, which is why I decided to work on it. I'm not sure why you say the article fails instantly. It certainly seemed to pass the guidelines by my interpretation. The page says it should meet "at least one of the following criteria," and it certainly meets number 6:


 * "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."


 * OiL certainly fulfills this requirement. In fact, oiL contains three musicians that are notable (Ginsburg, Margera, Miller), all of which have their own pages on Wikipedia.


 * Also, as far as enforcing the rules, the same page you recommended to me makes clear that these are mere guidelines, not rules. In Wikipedia's words, they are "merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article."


 * I will continue to work on the page, but on a sub-page, as you suggested -- you are right that I shouldn't be working on it on the actual page. I don't see this as a waste of time like you mentioned it being. As a cKy fan, I know that I, like a great many others, am very interested in the band's history and music prior to cKy. There ought to be a place where one can go to find the culmination of knowledge on this subject gathered in a single place, and that's what Wikipedia is all about. There is a great deal of information about oiL that someone may want to know. Who were the members of the band? How many band members came and went, and how long was each with the band? What was their sound, their style? What is their relation to cKy, Foreign Objects, This End Up, and other bands? How many EP's did they release, how many demos? When were they released? What songs appeared later re-recorded as cKy material? Right now, the cKy page is heavily lacking in its ability to answer most of these questions, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect it to, which is why I believe an oiL page is necessary. People who are interested in Foreign Objects, oiL, cKy, or any of their members will want a place where they can read about these things, and I don't see those needs beings adequately met without a page dedicated to oiL. If I can help provide that to any extent, I won't consider it a waste of time.


 * Anyways, thanks again for your time. You don't need to respond if you don't want to. I'll just keep working on the sub-page, and you can let me know what you think of the final product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tron55555 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thorough investigation of the issue. However, I still disagree with you that the article is notable enough. Your answer, that Deron, Chad and Jess are all 'notable' musicians, is flawed. They may be notable, yes, but they are not independently notable. It is odd that they still have their own articles, to be honest, as the only reason they are known is for their affiliation with CKY (and related groups, not notable on their own). CKY is not even hugely notable itself, only because it is was on a major label. The information on Oil is for a fan page, as they are simply not fit for Wikipedia. I appreciate you trying to find reliable sources, but the band's official website, Answers.com (a community-based website, like WP, which is not reliable in itself) and a fan website are not reliable sources. You need information from independent third-party sources, such as AllMusic, Rolling Stone, the BBC, and the like. Sorry, but your plan is not going to work. Feel free to add information to the CKY article, if it can be backed up, but a separate OiL page is not going to suffice on Wikipedia, in much the same way as articles like Rocket Baby Dolls, The Silver Beatles and Ultimate Dragons are not acceptable. Andre666 (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * accepted. I think CKY is fairly notable, being an internationally touring band, but that's not the issue here. My take on the issue was that the fact that Deron, Chad, and Jess had their own pages meant that they were considered independently notable by Wikipedia's standards, or I wouldn't have expected to see them having their own pages. Regardless, I'll submit to your experience here and back off it. I am going to be beefing up that CKY article history section a bit though, as I believe the information is significant enough that to their history that it ought to be somewhere. Also, I was wondering -- you seem to be okay with Foreign Object's having their own article, is that because of the two releases by Foreign Objects on a major record label, whereas Oil only had unofficial releases? I'm new, just trying to understand how it all works. Anyways, thanks for dealing with this in a reasonable manner. Tron55555 (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The major label releases definitely has a lot to do with it, but I think if the Foreign Objects article were submitted for review by any Wikipedia authority or community, it would be deleted. In all honesty, it is not worthy of its own article, only slightly more notable than Oil. As I said before, the key is to provide reliable sources, ideally independent, if you want to include information on Oil in the CKY history section. Andre666 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for helping me get a feel for things. Am I supposed to delete this section once the dispute is resolved? I read something like that on the etiquette page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tron55555 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, leave it here as a record. Thanks for not being like most of the dickish new Wikipedians; stick around :) Andre666 (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Argent
Hello. I'm not quite sure why you undid my edit concerning Sam's transfer to Hayes and Yeading, saying that transfer is not yet confirmed. As I understand it is confirmed. Please, check out the bottom of club's news list. It says that he has signed a contract with club. Here is the link - http://www.hyufc.com/news_files/news.html Utinsh (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this as their news page is quite confusing. Thanks, I will change now. Andre666 (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC).