User talk:Daniel Musto

Clearing all previous data. Hi.

Talkback
Tim meh  02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

adam gonthier
Yeah that minor edit looks bad. It was actually because I messed up the original AfD and was fixing it. If you go back and look at the history you'll see my original edits aren't minor. To answer your question, yes, only the band is notable, not the person. Skrewler (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed them, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have exclusive notability guidelines for individual artists within a band. Just off the top of my head, David Draiman of Disturbed does not seem notable outside of his band, yet his page continues to stand. I would like to know what is required of an individual artist within a notable band for him or her to earn their own article. Daniel Musto (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Hello. I noticed that you tend to add a lot of link rot templates to pages. One of these pages had only one bare URL, so it would take little to no time to change the link. Other articles that have issues, please add the templates to the "References" section, as the template has to do with the citation. Also, you removed a youtube link saying that it was illegal. While the link was completely irrelevant (a link to blabbermouth may be more appropriate), the video is perfectly legal, since it is fair use. And the answer the above question about David Draiman, he has done work with members of Korn (specifically on a song called "Forsaken") and meets the WP:GNG. Regards,  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was merely going through all of the articles for certain bands and tagging issues that struck me immediately. As for where to add the template, I can easily add it to the References section from now on. By illegal YouTube link, I meant irrelevant. However, I had that edit message saved in my computer and it just added it automatically. :/ When it comes to the notability issues, I am well aware of Draiman's song with Korn - however, Gontier has also guest-starred in a song with Apocolyptica, so in essence, he is notable too. I was attempting to make a point. Daniel Musto (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. I didn't know the story behind that, I just saw it on your talk page.  (On a less serious note, Apocalyptica is a great band, however I don't like their new music...whatever).    TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Days Grace
Hey Daniel. Do you think you could take a quick look at Three Days Grace, compare it to the good article criteria, and let me know if you think it satisfies those criteria? If so, I'll go ahead and list it at WP:GAN. Thanks. Tim meh  15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just decided to go ahead and nominate it, as it will likely be at least two months before I get a reviewer. If you still want to take a quick look at it and point out some possible improvements, that would be great. Tim  meh  18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Am just too fast
Hi, Just finished undoing Jasonvorhess182 damage and his account will be block indefinite. Take care --Bocafan76 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed Moderation
Hi, I got a message from you asking me to stop vandalizing the disturbed page. All I did was change the discography to remove some foul edits. Someone had changed the names of their cd's to:

The Dickness Believe Ten Thousand Dicks Indefuckable

"vandalism is any addition, removal or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia."

What I did was to change the false, and vulgar information to a previous correct state.

I apologize if I did anything anything out of the operating procedures of wikipedia, I am not yet familiar with the editing rules of wikipedia. I just wanted to change the discography as fast as possible. 70.20.244.60 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Highly offended
I was highly offended by your remarks. I didn't exclude the rebel claim of continued fighting because at the time I made the edit the rebels still didn't counter-claimed the government that the fighting was still ongoing. How could I have included the claim since they still didn't made it? And I was not biased towards the loyalists, I was simply reporting on what the source said (independent reporters). At the time the reporters were confirming the loyalists claims of victory. It's not a pro-loyalist edit if the facts are found to be true. I have been editing all of the libyan civil war articles since the very begining and have been batling with both pro- and anti-gaddafi editors for the sake of neutrality. I myself don't care eather way if they all kill each other. I don't need someone to accuse me of being for one side or the other while I am trying to make the articles neutral. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was agreed among editors months ago not to use the term revolutionaries because first of it's been decided this is not a revolution but a civil war, and the rebels are not revolutionaries for the tens of thousands that are still for the government. Opposition forces or rebels, that was what was agreed upon to be used in regards to them. Also, very few reporters use the term revolutionaries, most reporters use the term rebels. And the root of the word is revolution not revolt. Revolt is closer to rebellion. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I didn't know that...I don't have time to go through the backlog of agreements but I naturally will go with it accordingly. You view me as far more aggressive than I actually am. I am just interested in being thorough, wells-sourced, and objective. I cannot help it if the news is slanted pro-opposition. Also, your revision of my work will be changed once I find time. You omitted some key items and it again appears biased. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a funny thing, when you Wikipedia the word revolt...it directs to revolution. If you continue to take an aggressive stance with me, I am going to be forced to do likewise. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so I guess when those inmates in the Attica Prison revolted they were actualy revolutionaries. Whatever, you accused me first. Don't care anyhow, in any case the word revolutionaries is mostly used by the rebels themselves since they see themselves that way. Western governments, NATO, Russia or China mostly call them rebels, opposition forces or anti-government forces. Also, the Wikipedia community has agreed this is not a revolution but a civil war. ;) Got to sleep, bye. EkoGraf (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Songs about remorse
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Category:Songs about remorse, as per policy categories cannot be deleted under the proposed deletion process. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; please do not interpret this action as my endorsement for keeping this category. If you wish to pursue deletion, please see Categories for discussion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Buran Origin of Death


The article Buran Origin of Death has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No sign of notability, looks like copied from source

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Buran Origin of Death for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buran Origin of Death is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Buran Origin of Death until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Just Like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   18:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)