User talk:Ktm4391

A tag has been placed on Blank(band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article 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 Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out 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. thadius856talk 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not repost the article on the band. Multiple repostings are viewed as vandalism and will lead to the immediate loss of your edit privileges without further warning. - Lucky 6.9 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because there is a rule here regarding bands: They have to be extremely notable for inclusion. This means at least one of the following: A major hit, a major tour, opener for a major act, at least one notable member and the list goes on. Think of it this way: If Wikipedia was around in 1958 when the Beatles were getting started, they would not have been article-worthy at all. If the article was written when they hit big in 1963, that's another story. Hope this helps; band articles are deleted literally by the hundreds on a daily basis. - Lucky 6.9 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I replied to your comment on my talk page. thadius856talk 08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Norm Rice has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Maxis ftw (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Norm Rice constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Jayson (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM
Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TALK. If you want to complain about how horrible Wikipedia is then article talk pages are not the pages to do that. You can go to WP:VILLAGE PUMP or bother poor ol' User:Jimbo Wales about though I'm not sure either venue will be receptive. The thing about opinions is that everyone has one, and nobody cares.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Gavin McInnes
You are right to say that Salon, Jezebel, Slate and Feminist Current are super liberal sites, because they are. Check them out:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/salon/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jezebel/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/feminist-current/

However, you forfeit neutrality when you claim that Daily Waire, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Zero Hedge and Drudge Report are somehow credible sources. They aren't. Check them out:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/

They're just right-wing garbage sites, the same way the four above them are left-wing garbage sites. The remedy to liberal bias isn't conservative bias. Ward Dunn (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)