User talk:Luminifer

Welcome!

In accordance with this:
 * If you are here for social reasons, don't hesitate to send me a Wiki email using the tab over on the left, under "toolbox".
 * If you are here to give any advice on wikipedia itself, at this point I am not really interested, but you can feel free to post it. I may not read it.
 * If you are here to notify me that you are deleting a page that I created or was involved in, I request that this be followed on my behalf, should the page get deleted: "If your article is deleted and you would like a copy of it to be restored to your userspace so that you may work on addressing the concerns about the page, you may contact one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Or post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion." I also request that you properly list the page in using a Template:Delsort, and not try and sneakily delete it without notifying anyone. Thanks.
 * If you are here for any other reason, follow point 3.

The Talk section
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Lra drama 13:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notability of Robert Reid-Pharr
A tag has been placed on Robert Reid-Pharr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check 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. EMT1871 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob about the Dave Van Ronk pages... thanks. I'm planning on doing some more with them. It's a confusing discography too. He recorded on so very many labels.Airproofing (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki protocol is to have the original releases with original label, then mention or link to a compilation, esp. re-releases. I'm sure that is how it will go with Van Ronk. Take a look at my Chet Atkins discog which is huge. I've got artwork for Van Ronk too to go up. We should be able to put something together. I think his discog deserves a separate page but we're not quite there yet. Soon... Airproofing (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Name pages
Thanks for adding items to the page Patrick. However, I have reverted these, as those persons/characters are not known by the first name alone, and Patrick is a disambiguation page. They were already listed in the article Patrick (given name) instead. There's a note in the Manual of Style which explains this a bit more. Hope this helps, - Fayenatic (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BFI TV 100
Shouldn't all the other post-2000 dates be removed too, then? 132.185.144.120 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick note
By the way, I just saw your statement on your User: page about the Criterion for Speedy Deletion and thought you might find this interesting Special:Newpages. There are a number of pages deleted under CsD that would better be tagged with Prod & AfD, particularly the cases where nothing but citations and notability are at issue - such articles generally deserve some time to be shored up with print sources and the like. At least half, though, if not a majority, of pages that are deleted shortly after their creation actually are spam, nonsense, or such sheer drivel that the criterion actually are a legitimate and worthwhile tool. Hope you find this of interest/Have a Woodland Critter Christmas, MrZaius  talk  13:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mucky Pup entry
No sweat on the Mucky Pup info. I'm actually friends with a few of the Mucky and Dog Eat Dog guys and when I saw how little info was written on them a year or two ago, I felt obligated to do the research and write real entries for them. I also did the majority of writing on the Biohazard, Nastasee and 24-7 Spyz (which I believe you and I had minor some disagreement over recently) pages. Always glad to help though! JohnBWatt (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you live outside of the USA. I mention that because of your question as to why Non-Fiction isn't represented here on Wikipedia AND your following of the bands we've spoken of. While bands like Mucky Pup, Dog Eat Dog and Non-Fiction might still have a decent following in Europe, they're virtually unknown here. They were all part of local scenes here in NJ, and Mucky Pup and Dog Eat Dog even had some very minor recognition on MTV, but nothing noteworthy enough for anybody to really write about here. It's still weird for me to see Dog Eat Dog go to Europe and play festivals with Ozzy, Metallica and Wu-Tang Clan, yet when they return here they'll play a small club and still have trouble filling it. Even a band like 24-7 Spyz had a very limited following here. Their biggest claim to fame here was appearing, anonymously in the background, on a beer advertisement. So yeah, it's just a matter of styles and tastes I guess. What was a passing musical phase here, seemed to really catch on in Europe. I don't even have too much knowledge of Non-Fiction because outside of Dan Nastasi, I was never much a fan of the other music made by the members. What I wrote in the article was from memory and general research on the internet. So yeah, if you think you can actually get enough info on Non-Fiction, go ahead an write the article. The musical family tree of members is pretty large, stemming mostly from Hades. If I can add anything constructive, Ill lend a hand. JohnBWatt (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I was way off. Had to assume that though since most people I've been in touch with on her, especially concerning those bands, have been from Europe. Speaking of the Spyz, are you aware of the project that P. Fluid, Angelo Moore and Corey Glover have done? It's one song, which I have yet to download, and they claim to have no intention to do any live shows. If you go to P. Fluid's site though it only refers to this project, they're calling AFC. In addition to that, there's a Show Date link. Clicking that give a date of Friday, February 27th 9pm at the Mercury Lounge. I assume they meant the Mercury Lounge in NYC but there's already another show there that night. I Googled Mercury Lounge for other clubs with that name and none of them have the show listed. Just something to keep an eye out for if you're into those bands. JohnBWatt (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother 3
If you're interested in Mother 3, I request that you provide your assistance in the article. Thanks! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry - I have no idea how I managed to do that - but I fixed it. Thanks for the note. Tvoz / talk 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil
Aha!! Much more important than rainbow cookies. Or even Sicilian. Tvoz / talk 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sal's
Hahaha. I'm actually not 100% sure on that street address, so please check a yellow pages before hopping on the 1 or the 9. Any kind of sandwich of lasagna is good. Fresh mozerella. Sundried tomatoes (a little tough/ chewy, but tasty). Ziti. And of course sandwiches. Been a long long time. I have a new place out here on the west coast. :) I wrote up the Clams casino article not too long ago if you're interested. You should add Giano's page to your watchlist. He's fantastic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly I can't find a listing for my Sal's. Maybe it is no more. Went under after I stopped eating there? Isn't there a good Italian place near the Botanical gardens? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Album chronology
Are you telling me that albums can progress from any type of album or have the same type now? I been following the same type recently and had no clue there was such a change. Personally, I'm with the same type of album/release. FireCrystal (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the WP guidelines, it does not suggest that EP and LP should be listed differently (as they are very similar in their concept). It DOES suggest singles and albums should be listed separately. Luminifer (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It's not in my best interest to continue with it and I'm not in my best mood as my latest edit to my talk page indicates. FireCrystal (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Sorry about that revert. I don't remember it, and I think that I must have pressed the "rollback" button by accident while I was checking my watchlist. (Double-check your edit, though, as I think it has a typo or two.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As a point of order, if you make a change and someone challenges it, the article should be changed back to the way it was, and THEN (if really necessary) ask for it to not be changed until an agreement is reached, rather than restoring the change and trying to freeze it. On that basis, I reverted.  However it appears Newyorkbrad may not have been challenging it after all.  Anyway, I still like the article without the word "shit" spelled out (especially since you inserted it multiple times), since the song itself is polite enough to not say the word.  The song puts the word in your mind without saying it, and I see no reason why the article can't do the same.  Just my opinion, but I'll ask Newyorkbrad what he thinks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where in WP what you are stating here is stated? Also, the wording was rather immature by wikipedia standards: "a certain word" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Luminifer (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Satori
Do not revert information which does not belong. The album was released worldwide back in the 70s. Moreover personal opinions of columnists do not belong on the wikipedia. Nor do subjective edits from ignorant persons. It is false information, on a website that is suppose to provide correct information. Moreover, please do not edit my talk page again. Thank you, Hitomi 中村ヒトミ (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply re. Satori
Hi, and first off, I have no intention of being anyone's adversary, so don't worry about that. I think everyone who edits on Wikipedia meets up with unintentional adversaries.

Regarding your current problem, you are certainly in the right to ask for discussion, and the other user is wrong when he says "facts" and not opinions of columnists are what we strive for at Wikipedia. There is no way to decide what the facts are, without reference to published reliable sources. The article WP:RS talks about this.

As for the other user's talk page, it is considered acceptable for a user to remove anything he wants from his talk page, and to ask others not to post on his page. Therefore I don't recommend you try to reach him on his page again. It is not acceptable for another user to tell you to refrain from editing an article or its talk page, and other comments he made to you are not acceptable. If he won't discuss his reverts on the article's talk page, you may have to ask for administrator assistance. I am not an admin, so I can't help. But it does look like you tried to go about it the right way. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One point: The other user said, "The album was released worldwide back in the 70s", and I think he is saying that your edits about a Canadian edition only refer to recent editions, not the originals, and is therefore misleading. I see no reason why factual information about any edition can't be added, but if it is misleading or does not address original editions, this may be something that needs to be fixed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't be more help, but I see Wiki Alf has given you a hand, and his edit summary is great. I've been having similar trouble with another article, where someone insists on removing some content and refuses to explain why he believes it's untrue, even though he is very insistent that it is.  He opened a "request for comment" which I wasn't going to recommend to you, because these don't get a lot of attention, and that was this case in this instance: nobody commented.  On that basis, I restored the text.  I'm waiting to see what fallout, if any, results. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oil 101
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Oil 101, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Morgan Downey. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre Wars
That's a good idea about following or learning from a library's example. How do they fix things when these problems occur? Krobertj (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Until It Sleeps 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Morgan Downey
A tag has been placed on Richard Morgan Downey 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 person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Pain Hertz has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did 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 indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Luminifer. If you can give me any indication that Pain Hertz meets the notability guidelines of WP:BAND (I didn't see any asserted in the article), I'll be glad to reinstate it.  Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom Baker
Hi. In DWM #410, on page 7 there's a little article entitled: Tom Baker returns as the Fourth Doctor-for BBC Audio. DonQuixote (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned in Fourth Doctor, where this info fits in better. DonQuixote (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nick Wolven
A tag has been placed on Nick Wolven 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 person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ron Anderson (musician)
A tag has been placed on Ron Anderson (musician) 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jac Berrocal
A tag has been placed on Jac Berrocal 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jac and Ron :)
Hi! Yes I'm french and live in France. I could not see Jac Berrocal on stage yet, I missed his last live show in my city after arguying with my ex-girlfriend^^ So, waiting for the next one... Actually I could see him in Belgium "playing" bicycle on stage with Nurse with Wound, amazing show! Xic667 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to tell you, you may have seen there's already an (relatively poor) article about The Molecules. When I wrote down the french article was just after seeing the band play, and I wondered what would be the best to have an article : the man or the band ? And I concluded that afterall an article dedicated to Ron would be better, and would logically include the informations about the band. What do you think ? Personnaly I think it'd be more practical to have a more synthetic article about Ron that would refer his main projects, PAK and The Molecules, and merge all. I would not do it myself, as I told you I'm actually french and not perfectly at ease with writing articles in english. Xic667 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know the principles of Wikipedia :) (I'm sysop on french wikipedia), it's just that I don't know well the uses here, so I prefer to leave it to more experimented contributors from here (and there's some much work to do in my language...). My idea about The Molecules was just a suggestion, I'm not gonna do it, really. What I may do is for example try a rude traduction of the french article on Berrocal, wich is quite complete, so that you can write it properly. What do you think ? Regards. Xic667 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The link is there, "french", at the bottom of the page on the left, in "languages", can't you see it ? Xic667 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll launch the traduction in one of my user pages so that you can correct it before we put it in the article. I won't begin before a pair of days at least I think. Xic667 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Smoke on the Water
Hello, I applaud your attempt to find a source for a statement that seems obvious but was deleted because it was unsourced. However, I don't think the Guitar World article made the case that "The song is famous for having, arguably, the most well-known and often-played guitar riff in rock history" all it says is that it is "the first song everyone learns on guitar". I'm all for finding references for unsourced material, I did it myself on this article when the record was broken again this past May, but I think you have missed the mark on this one. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, CNs means citations right? If so yes, then up to a point. In this case I searched Guitar World, Rolling Stone, and Billboard and couldn't find a quote to support the addition and even so it's just someone's opinion.  As another example, see this edit I did earlier today.  Someone put in a fact with a non-verifiable source and I went to the school's website, found verification and added it.  I read your user page and say "right on" to most most of it, but to maintain quality of this site you do have to expect quality.  I think dropping a line and offering help to someone attempting to add to a site (and not just wanting to see that they made a contribution to the internet) is more productive than leaving questionable material.  I haven't been on Wikipedia that long and most of my original edits were deleted, I then read some policies, asked advice from editors that had more experience, and now I spend every waking moment editing and think I do a fairly good job. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I try to be between an inclusionist and exclusionist.  Hope to talk to you again. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Orly
Hi - just wanted to say I've been keeping up with this Orly Taitz debate with interest, and that you seem to be saying exactly the things I'd want to hear from an admin - and I hope you don't let the seeming illogic of others' stances dissuade you from doing what's right (not even Right by some morale standards, but just clearly in line with wikipedia's stated policy). Luminifer (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind sentiment! I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to leave the above note on my talk page.  —David Levy 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bubba hotep/Album template
How's that for a first draft? Need any more help, just let me know. Always glad to take a break from the spam and debauchery to talk music and albums! :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. This gives me an idea. I'll get back to you. :) Luminifer (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenge (album)
Hi.

Sorry i can`t be of any more help. i pretty much just copy the info from Allmusic.com. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Boogie-Woogie String Along for Real
A tag has been placed on Boogie-Woogie String Along for Real 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rockstone35 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrongly tagged. Speedy removed by myself – B.hotep •talk• 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Album details filled out - hope you like it DISEman (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Return of the 5000 Lb. Man
A tag has been placed on The Return of the 5000 Lb. Man 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rockstone35 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrongly tagged. Speedy removed by PMDrive1061 – B.hotep •talk• 08:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you can remove these notifications from your talk page if you like, Luminifer. – B.hotep •talk• 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've filled out this page - hope you like it DISEman (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Antonette Goroch
A tag has been placed on Antonette Goroch 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: How to revert edits
Despite your boxed statement here, you are apparently unaware that I responded to your posting to my talk page ON MY talk page. I certainly agree with you about keeping conversations together, and since the link in the heading here will take you there, I won't repeat my description of the problem here. Thanks. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You do it your way, I'll do it mine
If the person quoted is living, I remove uncited additions. Just cite what you add. "I heard it" isn't a citation. If the person who added it won't notice the removal, they won't notice the cite tag either. And if misinformation is added, it's degrading, not improving, the encyclopedia. I don't believe that a greater quantity of words necessarily leads to an improvement in the quality of an article. Some articles would be greatly improved by slashing gratuitous quotations. I use my judgment and plan to continue to do so. Feel free to use your own rather than mine. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's better to tag than to remove uncited information about a living person. If you can't cite it yourself, I don't think you should return it to the article. If you think it's important and care about it that much, search up the cite yourself before returning it. In short, no, I don't agree with you. And you're not going to convince me to change my approach and there is nothing wrong with doing it my way. Yworo (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in discussing it any further. It was a direct quotation of a living person. It doesn't matter what it's about. It needs a citation. Yworo (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Jethro Tull
No problem and thanks for leaving the note. There's quite a bit of cleaning up to be done on the article - if I have a moment I'll get to it... David T Tokyo (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I sent you a E-mail a while back, not sure if it ever got to you? All the best SpitfireTally-ho! 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I never kept a copy of the E-mail, but no matter. I know who you speak of, and basically I think that all we can do is remain as calm as we can, and always be prepared to back down on something if it is clear that the discussion it is not constructive, even when the other user will not back down, we must "swallow our pride", so to speak. I'm not really sure how you want me to help, but all I can do is offer that advice; just keep as calm as possible. I know that you have probably already told yourself this, and indeed I have never seen a circumstance where you have been rude or were you have shown frustration in your discussion with the user, and so I think that you are dealing with the situation very well, far better than myself in any case, I have ceased to have any communication with the user, as I did not trust myself to maintain a calm state of mind =).
 * Again, I am not sure why you contacted me about the matter, not that I mind having been contacted, but it just leaves me a bit lost as to how to help. Although I have said that we should back down when discussion becomes nonconstructive I believe that if the user is being rude or unwelcoming to a newcomer, then we should always strive to stop them.
 * I know that my words are probably of little use to you, as they are probably just a repetition of what you already know.
 * Again, sorry I can't be of more use, but if you want any other assistance then please just ask, and I'll do my very best.
 * Kind wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit war/vandalism
I've blocked the most recently used IP based on today's edit summaries, and a comment on my talk page which was a further veiled personal attack. It also takes into account the actions of the previously used IP which were similar, if not more frequent. I'm sorry I didn't notice it before. If you don't mind though, I will stay out of the content dispute matter because it will affect my ability to act in the administrator role on those articles if other action needs to be taken. Well, that's me directly assisting. As for advising where to go from here? Hmm, I don't know. I will have a think. – B.hotep •talk• 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help... Is it a reasonable thing to do at this point to reinstate the original page again (much of which I did not write, btw :) and then incorporate the actually useful things that the user tried to add? Luminifer (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I could not possibly advise on that. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The London Souls
A tag has been placed on The London Souls requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check 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. --Surachit (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jimmy Wilgus
A tag has been placed on Jimmy Wilgus 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 202.174.177.44 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For your own peace of mind
For your own peace of mind I would leave them to it, you can find a lot more constructive enjoyable things to do than waste your time on that worthless stub. They will suck all your energy, leave them to it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a reflection on the wikipedia, it is a reflection on the situation there, don't give up, look for new avenues to enjoy. Later, Rob.
 * Good, later we could delve deeper into the abyss, regards Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Power balladry
You're welcome. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD
I'm still not convinced by the notability of the article (and most of the Keep votes on the AfD were "it's notable", which isn't useful) but having looked at it again I've restored the article to see if it can be improved. If it can't, another AFD may be necessary. Thanks, Black Kite 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Thanks for helping shed some light on the infobox situation. Personally, I think editors who had an important hand in shaping the said article should get to choose. Or Something like that haha. -- Noj r (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I left some comments on the  Where You Go I Go Too discussion page. Perhaps you would be interested in the discussion. -- Noj r (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GNR question?
I know that you yourself have not edited the GNR page, but I'm curious of your opinion of thier genre and a source I used. I used sources from Rolling Stone's website that refered to thier genre as "metal", so I added heavy metal as a genre(I also kept hard rock as a genre). However these sources kept on getting removed. Do you agree that they shouldn't have been removed? Rockgenre (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did bring it up on the talk page, but it was still removed. Rockgenre (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page
No worries, thats cool, thanks for the advice.--DavisHawkens (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

yep, no worries, and i agree, its really a quote on speculation, I thought it was kinda odd as all,

as Johnny was always going on about the early hard rock of the mc5 and The Stooges...

I think the Who was quoted as an influence somewhere...

--DavisHawkens (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, This I.P. 202.174.177.56 has just made the false accusation that I am vandalising the article by removing the fictious claims, despite the fact that I have proven and given clear links above that prove the claim to be completely incorrect. Is there a way of possibly blocking this I.P. and others that keeps vandalising? --DavisHawkens (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Would u know if there is anyone we could speak to about this sort of thing?--DavisHawkens (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, just reverted the thing and then read the thing on 'edit warring'... ur right, my bad... --DavisHawkens (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, that would be good... I think u might be able to add it, yeah he seems to give a mixed response...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You might wanna make ammendments to the Page article, everytime i try and fix it, people, just revert it, U seem to be better at this than I am--DavisHawkens (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Heads up.
I just removed the puppet notice on the top of my page. I wonder who put that there in the first place? Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Power ballad
Yes, the history is only retained through looking at the original article lol. :D Wi ki pe di an  06:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops...
Given that there are so many truly non-notable bands trying to get an article, every now and then a legit entry gets clobbered. Sorry about that. I'll restore it right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! No, it's just me doing some active new page patrolling. Thanks for pointing out my boo-boo. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

High Tide
They were an early prog metal group who kind of sound like Jim Morrison fronting Black Sabbath. Their first album(Sea Shanties) I highly recommend it, "Death warmed up" and "Futilist's Lament" were very heavy for their time and the album also has it's softer moments. Their second album is more straightforward prog. You may know Simon House from Hawkwind started out with them. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metalchicks


The article Metalchicks has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Only references are to CD sales sites.

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. RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Obscurities I recommend.
I think Lucifer's Friend, SLB, and Flower Travellin' Band were great groups, though I've never heard of Attila, so I'll look them up. Off the top of my head, other little known bands I enjoy. Captain Beyond one of the great space rock, "rocket roll" supergroups, The Gun (band), think of a fuzzier Cream, their song "Race with the Devil" was covered by Judas Priest, Girlschool, Black Oak Arkansas, and Uriah Heep did a demo that never appeared on an album. Cactus (band), very influencial, boogie, boogie, blues rock, supergroup. Their song "Rumblin' Man" is the loudest song I've ever heard. Truth and Janey, I recntly gave them a page here, the closest band I can compare them with is Blue Cheer. Elf (band), Ronnie James Dio's first venture into harder rock, "Gambler, Gambler" is a great song and they did a good live cover of "War Pigs" you can find on youtube. The Small Faces, it's kind of sad that they are only known for "Itchycoo Park"(which definately isn't them at their best) here in America while they were a hit machine in the U.K., Steve Marriott was a clear influence on Robert Plant. They were mainly psychedelic, but songs like "Come on Children" are very proto-Zeppelin. Leafhound simply great hard rock. Budgie (band) of course I know you have heard of them. --Rockgenre (talk)04:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Metalchicks
I have nominated Metalchicks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Metalchicks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  SKATER  Speak. 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
No problem, turns out I was in error but it was worth checking. Yes, I saw the one that you sent on the 4th of September, apologies for not getting back to you about that. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Me again
DMBQ, I'll have to look them up, my knowledge of Japanese rock music is very little(Loudness and FTB are about all I know).

Hey by any chance can you help me with a source here. For Blue Cheer's page I'm trying to add that they were pioneers in experimental rock, but I don't know how to cite book references. The book, 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before you Die, page 140, and the quote was, " "paving the way for everything from the Stooges to Zeppelin, from heavy metal to experimental rock."Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced edit
I'm not sure where this actually belonged, but I'm sure it isn't part of an article lead.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page for Carmine Guida, then, not the main article page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Privacy issues
adminhelp It was brought to my attention that the information here in my page log: contains some information which might be used to determine my identity. I would like this removed if possible (via Revision deletion if possible). If it's easier, I would not be against deleting the entire revision history of my page, or even the entire page itself. Thanks Luminifer (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFO. Tim Song (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the relevant revisions from public view. If you want them removed from the view of administrators, please follow the link above. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I wasn't even told even several of my other pages got deleted(he got rid of my "Man on the Silver Mountain" without telling me.) Just about every page I've made here has either gotten deleted or has been nominated. The Truth and Janey page is also nominated for deletion here. I'll try and straighten this up later.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If in fact you are leaving Wikipedia I just want to thank you for being such s good friend and helping me with my pages and edits. I wish you the best and hope you have a great life ahead of you man.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bubba Hotep
(Whose page I've been watching for some time and did not follow you to) - You do of course have the right to vanish. And again, any user with oversight (why the hell did I point you to Checkuser) can blank the link from all revisions on the AFD page. -- King Öomie 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that may have been the goal of flagging all the articles I was watching for deletion at the same time? Well, "you" win, I'm sick of it. Luminifer (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually offering a solution that would allow you to maintain anonymity AND continue editing. It was never my intention to drive you off Wikipedia. -- King Öomie 22:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the specifics. The issue is that this kind of thing can happen here and that it is not viewed negatively enough to be problematic. Invasion of privacy is a very serious thing, and wikipedia policy acknowledges it, but we will see if it actually enforces it. Luminifer (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nick Wolven
I have nominated Nick Wolven, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Triplestop  x3  22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I regret to see that my original AFD seems to have caused an avalanche aimed at a large portion of your work here. It was never my intent to make you feel harassed, and I apologize. -- King Öomie 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not have been your intent, and I believe you, but I honestly don't believe this was not the other party's original intent. Let the articles stand on their own merits. I do not want to be stalked anymore. Luminifer (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Libs
I commend you for trying Luminifer, and best of luck in bringing enforcement of the rules upon Libs, but unfortunately I doubt it's going to happen. Wiki Libs appears to be part of the "club" of wikipedia, including many admins and users, who are allowed to get away with whatever they want. The rules don't apply to some people here, which is why I don't register. Already you can see it in your report, the way you're giving direct evidence of rule-breaking, and it seems to be going ignored. But good on you for trying. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to help you out
You forgot to put User:Mozucat in your report. If you are worried that someone will think you to be sockpuppeting in the future you need to separate the potential sock suspects completely by adding them all to your report. Also note, sockpuppetry wasn't brought up. A CU is for sockpuppet checks. Which was not mentioned in earlier discussion regarding the tainted AfD. I don't read where anyone thought that the 3 of you were the same person. The AfD was tainted because of the weighted evidence of personal acquaintance (via the web). That term used for that is "meat" not "sock" A CU can clear "sock" but not really "meat" The CU will just show all the accounts created from the same IP range that you edit from. Hope that helps you out. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. This was in response to your comment: "You seem to forget that, even though all events pointed to doing a checkuser, no one, myself included, ever formally requested one on you and your internet friends.". I didn't want you saying that over and over again as if I were guilty and that somehow you were actually assuming good faith, when in actuality you were constantly refering to the event. Luminifer (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF is great. But at no time should AGF be used as blinders to avoid seeing a possibility because of what it might entail, especially when all other possibilities are far less plausible. For example, we don't overturn Checkuser results because the owner of the IP maintains that there are 25 people in the house that all have their own accounts, and all like to edit the same articles. While that's potentially possible, Occam's Razor applies. -- King Öomie 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment, but what's the relevance? I'm saying Libs did not AGF. You're saying Libs did not have to (or may not have to had done so). I'm saying Libs was saying they DID AGF in the recent post on the WQA. So, what's the relevance? or is it even important to explain it? I didn't say Libs should have AGF in this case - Libs claimed that they already did, by not issuing a checkuser. I did not want to hear that claim anymore, hence my attempt to enter it myself. Luminifer (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a couple claims I'm tired of hearing. Rather than wading through yet more diffs, I'll just say that's not worth explaining. I must say, you are announcing your retirement in many, many places over a fairly long period of time. -- King Öomie 04:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want to explain why I don't respond, should I not. Once the WQA is done, I'm gone, as I've stated on my user page. Luminifer (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you make your own decision, but just know that yourself and all of your hard work on wikipedia will be missed by many if you leave, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... It's hard to think staying is worth while when someone tries to reveal your identity (whether they are correct or not) publicly on the site. Luminifer (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't... has this not been explained? Libs posted a link to when you said who you were. You had it oversighted, but that doesn't mean the edit never happened. Regardless, it's not going to go away if you insist on telling every editor you bump into that you've been 'outed' (with a handy link to the WQA). -- King Öomie 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * King, I do not appreciate you consistently harassing me on my talk page, despite very clear instructions at the top. Libs did google searches on my userid to attempt to determine my identity. Whether or not this violates any policy, it makes me uncomfortable, as I've stated. I do not appreciate social networking profiles of mine being posted on AFD discussions. Please stop repeating the same point on my talk page - it seems to serve no purpose other than to harass me. Luminifer (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere else
If you still want to contribute to the Wiki project but Wikipedia is not your thing at the moment, can I suggest strategy? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... Honestly, my faith on the whole project hinges on what sorts of actions are taken as a result of all these violations. Will it prove that some users are "above the law"-style self-believed copes? Jimmy Wales has said repeatedly that users should not view themselves as police, but gardeners... is it just empty rhetoric? Luminifer (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, "Ban Libs or I'm leaving"? -- King Öomie 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one asked for a ban. "Tell Libs his behavior is appropriate in a way that Libs will actually acknowledge and adjust to" is more like it. but you misinterpet me anyway- I'm leaving either way. Whether I still have faith in the project as a whole or not is contigent on the outcome of this WQA, as I've been claiming in discussions promoting wikipedia, etc, that there are ways to combat these sorts of things, and if it proves not to be true, then how can there be faith in wikipedia? I'd like to end this discussion now on my talk page now. Thanks.
 * Saw this, thought you might interested. Arbitration/Requests/Case- administrative deceit, closed circles of friends, all that good stuff. Grab some popcorn. -- King Öomie 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC) And just to be perfectly clear, I do not support their actions in knowingly assisting a sockpuppet become an admin.

Thanks for the WP:MUSIC link
As this is topic drift from Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven I'm replying here.

Thank you for bringing up that thing about WP:MUSIC. I mostly deal with author articles and WP:AUTHOR is far tighter. For example, I'm struggling with Articles for deletion/Irene Radford where an author has 20 books published by major publishers and with every single one of them available in public libraries (sometimes in over 200 libraries). Were she under WP:MUSIC it's an instant keep but for authors having a book published is not a WP notable event.

One question as you seem to know the music scene. Roughly how many albums are the major record companies producing each month? I'm trying to see how it compares to books published where there's perhaps ten major publishers (many of the old indie publishers are now owned by publishing groups) and each of them releases around 20 new books per month. Counting all of the indie publishers I'd guess 300 new books per month with 30 of those getting highlighted in the "New Books" sections of your local bookstore. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 10:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Me again
Sorry, it took me so long to respond, so to answer your question I don't provide my email for this site.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pain Hertz
Hi there, thanks for your message. While the AFD was a tricky call, in the end the !votes weighed up as being 7-2 (maybe 7-3 if you count the SPA) in favour of deletion. Given such a strong showing for the "Delete" side, I did not feel that I could overrule consensus and make a "no consensus" close. If a few more people had agreed with your rationale it would have been much different.

I stand by the close, but you have my assurances that I will not be personally offended should you elect to take it to DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Retire
adminhelp I've decided it's time to stop using this account here, in accordance with what I've been saying I'd do. I would appreciate if someone would investigate the behavior of the user I've complained about here and determine if some course of action is necessary or not, for the reasons I've explained. If I did not file the right report, I'd appreciate if the right kind of report were filed. It's not really relevant to me anymore what happens there, but it would be for the good of wikipedia that this be investigated.. Luminifer (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you enjoyed being apart of the Wikimedia projects. -- Cubs197   (talk)  16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's being handled; no need to call the admins over to an active discussion. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that that user that you have a problem with is causing problems by editing repeatedly without commenting or responding to discussion. He has a good sense of humor but is extremely rude and offensive with his language.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The London Souls
A tag has been placed on The London Souls 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hello. I'm very happy for meeting you here, only few contributors are interested in those areas of music. Wikipedia needs contributors like you. I think you should stay here despite all problems you may have to front. Sorry for the translation of Berrocal's article, I think I'll do it one day but I don't have enaugh time for myself since some weeks.

Hope to see you soon or one day, later, over here :) . Xic667 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki libs
Reported for sockpuppeting. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Added Aussie Ausborn and also GripTheHusk. Please keep an eye out for others. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He used multiple users in a concerted 'attack' on my edits at the Little Richard article. Hopefully, he doesn't erase them (the various users you mentioned - possibly more) on the Little Richard discussion page.  I wondered why it seemed so overwhelming.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Been awhile, how's it going, man? I made a page for JPT Scare Band. An acid rock band that you may be interested in. Rockgenre (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why FMI?
que?

yes I remember now, well done, I find people with multiple accounts one of the worst aspects of this wikipedia, if you are good at sockpuppet investigating? If you are I could use someone else having a look and giving an opnion? Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you were attacked here, just leave this account and create another account... its a shame to lose any good faith editors ...I will ask Sam, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Def Leppard
I was going to re-add it, but it was mentioned by another user (Rockgenre) that since glam metal and pop metal are the same (and Def Leppard wasn't glam), then pop metal isn't one of their genres.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my last post, I didn't read Rockgenre's post right.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard Article
I greatly appreciated your perseverance in the face of a tricky foe. Many of the users that the sockpuppet editor was using were used against my efforts. (He was actually was a fan of another artist and a guitarist that apparently did not understand rhythm and the dgegree of LR's impact.) If you have the interest I would greatly appreciate any feedback / input you might have to help make the Little Richard article more encyclopedic. I have been inserting a lot of information which I believe is relevant. The article was severely lacking and contained a lot of unsourced information. It has much improved recently.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hardware (band)
A tag has been placed on Hardware (band) 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. magnius (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs
He's blocked, quit Beating a dead horse.-- SKATER  Speak. 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What's up?
Hey, here's a really interesting article you might enjoy reading http://www.jptscareband.com/jptlostpioneers.pdf. It mentions some of the more obscure early hard rock and heavy metal bands. Rockgenre (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reconsidering of articles
Given the circumstances, you probably could reinstate your previous articles, it probably isn't to late e.g. Pain Hertz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pain_Hertz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Wolven

Problems with Only Semi-Democratic rules can be a drag and problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC can be annoying, but its no reason to give up.

You also appear to have unfinished business here, which could be useful given the circumstances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Page#Johnny_Ramone_and_.22punk.22_guitar.2C_The_Stooges.2C_Mc5

--Pendelberry (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pendelberry has been blocked as a sock of User:CosmicLegg, who's had socks caught and stopped by Wiki Libs for some time now; thus, the vested interest in undoing anything Libs was involved in. Socks including a number of users you (and I) have worked with before. So I was taken aback when you called libs "one of the worst, longest-running" puppeteers (which is a term that doesn't actually apply, according to Brandon). -- King Öomie  21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * are you saying that to pick a fight and/or just yell at me? or do you really want me to respond reasonably to this? Luminifer (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking to the motivations of the user that posted here. You can do what you want, I wanted you to have the full picture. He could give two... about the articles he's suggesting you bring back, he's only interested in undoing something Libs took part in.


 * Again, do what you want. I personally don't think Lib's involvement (rather, the involvement of accounts and IPs connected to libs) warrant a 'mistrial' in this case, but if you bring the articles back and they meet WP:N, etc, great. -- King Öomie  15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar, Luminifer, although I don't list them on my page I love recieving them. It really means a lot to me. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I got your email
I just got your email concerning that "genre warrior" page. I agree that it's in violation of wikipedia policies (NPOV, etc). I already told another user about it.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I tagged that article for speedy deletion (nonsense). BTW, thanks for the email.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops I replied on the wrong user page! Sorry!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was on Rockgenre's page! haha--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I am very humbled and I appreciate the award very much. Hey did you ever get around to reading that article? RG (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't responsed for such a long time. I completely forgot about it and I for the record I happen to be a FTB fan. Japan's answer to Sabbath. Did you have a good New Year? RG (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hideki Ishima
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hideki Ishima, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Satori (album)
I see some disturbing edits going on at Satori (album) by you that could lead to you being blocked. In short, I see WP:OWNership, WP:CIVIL problems and removal of cited material, only to be replaced with uncited material. You need to stop this and work collaboratively with other editors on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. This warning went to the wrong party. It seems Luminifer has upheld high standards here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Flippa.com
Sir. What's your take on this article Flippa and regarding its deletion? I'd really really appreciate a reply from you. Thanks a bunch in advance. --Scieberking (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas


Spitfire would like to wish you a very happy Christmas. Whether Christmas be spent with family or friends, or quietly by yourself, I hope that you find peace and contentment. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Luminifer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jimmy Wilgus -

Re: FYI
I'm doing pretty good, made some new articles. I've had some trouble with another user, but it's no big deal. You? RG (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice this subtlety? Luminifer (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yah, this Ibaranoff guy has really been attacking me, but like I said you shouldn't get involved. You probably have enough to worry about. RG (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Wolven
Hi, Luminifer. I have evaluated the article Article Incubator/Nick Wolven which you placed as being ready for return to the mainspace. Unfortunately, it remains substantially unchanged from the article which was evaluated at Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven and deleted. It still lacks any significant reliable sources. As such, I have deleted the article. An article about this person will need to wait for some future time when their notability is established and they garner significant coverage. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Regards. — Cactus Writer |   needles  22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * I see you added a large number of references to Article Incubator/Nick Wolven. Unfortunately, none of these really does anything to establish notability - and adding links to non-reliable sources probably hurts the cause more than it helps.


 * I would suggest first limiting the article to one reference per sentence, except when necessary to demonstrate multiple reviews and eliminating the obviously non-independent sources (e.g. publisher's comments on stories). Then you will need to craft an argument why a (seemly random) review on the web should carry enough authority to establish notability. Hope that helps.


 * Feel free to ask me is you have any questions, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA
You know, I really did enjoy our debates, as heated as they got. Near the end I would actually be worried to open the page, thinking "has he found something to really stump me with?" It really did breed the respect of a sparring partner.

So I have only one thing to say about your post to my RFA.

Well played. -- King Öomie  18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My response to King
Hi King - I don't know how to say this… I think you have potential to be a good admin or contributor, but .. I am bothered by the fact that you don't seem to have taken any of the criticisms on your RFA seriously. Part of my objection really is summed up by what you just said here - that you viewed our discussions as 'sparring', and that you really enjoyed the arguments. I feel that in order to really grasp wikipedia you need to move beyond those attitudes and to understand that wikipedia is a real entity in the world, and that editing it places on you real responsibility for how it is perceived and the information it presents. It is not, as Wiki Libs often says, a game at all. I think you have the ability to rise above a lot of what I see as petty squabbling, but you really need to pull back your perspective, and not jump to conclusions so quickly (re: Sumbuddi for instance).

I really hope you read through the criticisms and _take them seriously_ -- many people had valid thoughts. When you are going to enter and argument, stop and think about where the other person might be coming from. Stop and think about if the effect of you arguing with them will be good or bad for wikipedia. Stop jumping to conclusions so quickly and making it other peoples' responsibilities to convince you otherwise. This is not what NPOV is about, and if you become an admin you will have to apply NPOV to people as well as articles.

Regarding your lack of contributions, no one has summed up the feeling very well - the belief is that, if you have not contributed actual material to the encyclopedia, you won't know what it feels like for someone else to delete it. You won't know how people think when they make contribution, and you won't know how to help them along to assist them in correcting their mistakes. I think this is a valid claim. Regarding your comment to Sumbuddi that it was my post that caused you not to get adminship, I don't know what to say. Most of the people who objected didn't do so on the grounds of my diffs - people like DGG particularly had very sound points that they brought up as well. It kind of worries me that you don't seem to be taking this seriously - that it sounds not only like you don't plan to listen to what objections people might have, but that you view the whole thing as a game (by your "well played" comment on my talk page, for instance). I need to stress this - no one objects to you as a person, and this is not a valuation of your worth. However, there are things that people want you to improve in order to feel like you will act fairly in all situations. A lot of these have to do with perspective. Please, for yourself and for the project, read over all of the objects, and take them seriously. If you get an adminship the next time, it doesn't mean that all of that good advice people gave was not necessary. I'd like you to be a really good admin, and I think you have the potential, but I do feel you need to work on a few things (who doesn't?).. and a lot of those (not all) were summed up in that RfA.

I wrote this up and then decided maybe it's not even worth posting, since you do genuinely seem to not be taking any of this to heart… especially considering how you've been badgering Sumbuddi on his SPI, and then took it upon yourself to try and respond to Tim Song's query to sum up the position, despite the fact that he repeatedly asked Sumbuddi specifically to respond.

One last comment - you seem to be under this belief that everyone who Supported you was 'in the right', and that everyone who Opposed had some nitpicky issue that really should not have been an issue at all. This is disrespectful to everyone who had a valid objection - and in fact, your belief of this after the RfA serves to show that you really don't seem have respect for 'consensus' (or lack of consensus) when it disagrees with you. Please think about it. Luminifer (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is serious, yes, but if it were inappropriate to enjoy one's work, I doubt the project would have the tens of thousands of active contributors it does. There's a level of solemnity required, of course, but I already have a job, and I don't even get paid for this one.
 * I never said it was your post that cost me the RFA, and I don't believe that to be true. I said that several other opposes cited diffs you provided.
 * To your last comment- I see no disparity with implicitly agreeing with those who agree with me- and I didn't say that I outright believe all my opposers to be wrong. I accept that different people have different standards. Several specific opposed included characterization of my edits that I felt were quite off-base (including your own), and pointing this out cost me. You'll notice that many of the Opposes have no response from me at all. These I had no real issue with. -- King Öomie  20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that you need to think harder about why you felt that these people's characterizations of your edits were 'off base' with how you interpreted them. Especially for an admin, some degree of understanding why people feel the way they do about your actions is very important. (Also, the answer is not to convince them that your actions were misinterpreted by them. The goal is to try not to perform actions which WILL offend and/or be misinterpreted). Luminifer (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I've learned from a watchlist including admin talkpages, it's that no matter how grounded your actions are in policy and logic, someone somewhere WILL complain directly at your face. I'd say that being able to succinctly explain oneself when faced with such complaints and/or misinterpretation ("You deleted my article because you don't like that person!" being a popular one with CSD A7 tags) is quite important, and that it's not always easy (or even possible) to avoid actions others will take offense to. Hindsight being 20/20, perhaps the most politically correct position is to completely avoid contentious subjects, but it's certainly not the most useful. -- King Öomie 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you are saying that because it's inevitable that people will get angry at you, you shouldn't think about why someone is angry and figure out if you could have done anything differently. Also, it still feels like you are arguing to prove that you are right, or that what you believe is right, rather than discussing things to reach a common ground or where 'the truth in the middle' may be. This is what people meant by "confrontational". Luminifer (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was saying I disagreed with your prioritization of explaining oneself and avoiding the need to explain oneself. There was no extreme yes/no in there. -- King Öomie  02:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gasoline
Hey thanks for the article support. What have you been up too? RG (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Chains album chain
I just left a message with Jhw57. He was the one who reverted the edits I made to the New Order album chain back when I was thinking what Libs told me back in 2008. I want to see if maybe Jhw57 agrees that Sap and Jar of Flies should be included in the Alice in Chains studio album chain as well. Shaneymike (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)‎

RfA
Concerning Requests for adminship/Skater 2, your expansion is posting twice (two votes). Might want to remove one. Kindly Calmer   Waters  05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the duplicate vote (first entry). If something there was something from the first vote that was inadvertently removed, please add to the existing vote. Thanks. Kindly Calmer   Waters  05:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey Luminifer, No offense but it really didn't surprise me to see you in my oppose section. Yet, you do have some valid reasons for opposing me and I respect those. Even though we've had our differences and misunderstandings (which you're right, I mostly jumped in without thinking) You're a good editor and I respect your opinion. Hell, maybe I'll see you in the Support one day.-- SKATER  Speak. 00:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Antonette Goroch
I have nominated Antonette Goroch, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Antonette Goroch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Melaen (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthony Armstrong (musician) for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Anthony Armstrong (musician), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anthony Armstrong (musician) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be a saint
I was looking through the incubator and saw Nick Wolven and was curious about the author, so I came here to look around. I was saddened by what I saw.

In looking around I've seen that you have been a very constructive and valuable editor. Exactly the type of person that Wikipedia should be appreciating. But the opposite has taken place.

I looked through WQA and was shocked to see that your attempts at having a problem user corrected not only failed but were turned in to an attack on you. I was even more disheartened to see that two others joined in on the attack on you instead of correcting the problem user. And even worse, the problem user was a super-ultra-massive sock puppeteer.

What I expected was that the two others would apologize and admit their mistakes, but what I saw was that they attacked you again. Then to top it off they both ran for adminship and attacked you even more for politely pointing out their weaknesses. Weaknesses that were actually egregious failures on their part.

It's just amazing how vicious people can be to good contributors such as yourself. I really must commend you on being so cordial to such vicious people. I would have blown my top. Maybe my perspective is different because I was able to read several months of events in a couple hours, but I have to say you must be some kind of saint to put up with all of that and not loose your cool and to continue to be polite

It looks like your semi-retirement changed to full retirement, so I'm not sure that you'll ever see this. But I needed to say something after reading through all the hell that you went through. I wish you the best and am sorry you had to go through all that nastiness. 64.40.62.48 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Retired
Please encourage some of your "buddies" to retire too. Wikipedia really needs a changing of the "old guard" so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.184.232 (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Motel (Pak album)


The article Motel (Pak album) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattg82 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bleud


A tag has been placed on Bleud 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tor Bernhard Gausen


The article Tor Bernhard Gausen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable composer.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Swivel (band)


The article Swivel (band) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of meeting WP:NMUSIC. Sourced solely to social media, and no better sources located on a search."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Extreme Gourmet


The article Extreme Gourmet has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "non notable television show"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Five Guys in a Really Hot Garage


The article Five Guys in a Really Hot Garage has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable album"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)