User talk:Neon white/Archive3

...
You constantly flame other users, and you put a WP:NPA warning on my page without provocation, and don't sign your posts, at that? You, good sir, are in need of review. (&gt;O_o)&gt;  Something  X  &lt;(^_^&lt;) 00:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, i do not. If you have any base to these absurd acusations then provide or i will consider it yet another personal attack. Until then i highly suggest reading No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." -- neon white talk 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam Lazzara
Hi Neon white; An IP has reverted your redirection in this article with a summary justification. As I don't know about the theme, I'm telling you about this, so you can do the more appropriate. Regards, Caiaffa (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, i restored the redirect on the basis that there has been no improvement to the article, it still asserts no notability and lacks sources which means it is violation of WP:BLP.

Haaretz
take a look on the article.Oren.tal (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What am i looking for? -- neon white talk 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haaretz&diff=228288911&oldid=228280776
 * The consensus is clearly that this source is fine so i have warned to user about edit warring. -- neon white talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you conclude that there is "consensus"? It's largely Oren.tal who is edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no valid reasons given for removing this. There is nothing in wikipedia policy that invalidates this source. If you disagree use the talk page and dispute resolution. -- neon white talk 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been actively discussed; basically Oren.tal is intent on characterizing Haaretz as "Left wing" by hook or crook. Look in the article history and see how he constantly scours the net for any source to present that (his) opinion, ignoring the majority if WP:RS's that describe Haaretz as liberal. We dont include every last iota of information available on the net to characterize a subject. Finding one BBC article on an entirely different subject that uses the term "left wing" does not need to be included just because its the BBC. And note that a separate BBC article that is used, which actually is about the press in Israel, does NOT use that characterization. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and not that wikipedia is not the place for personal battles. The article history is irrelevant, there is a reliable source for this piece of info so removing it not policy. It doesnt matter what other sources say they do not contradict it. -- neon white talk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<--c'mon now, common sense is required when using reliable sources. There are more instances of the BBC describing Haaretz as liberal for eg here and here and here and here and here and here just to name a few. In one isolated instance it cites "left wing". so I think it is you who should assume good faith, and accept the fact that this dispute is being fueled by one editor's intransigent POV pushing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i have never seggested that anyone is acting in bad faith, merely that you are msunderstanding policy, none of those sources contradict the other, there is no reason that they all cannot be used. -- neon white talk 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to template the regulars, as you did on User talk:Malik Shabazz. Making a personal, specific comment will probably make for a friendlier and more productive atmosphere than using a template that treats the editor as a clueless newbie. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Issuing a 3RR warning to one editor in a content dispute, and not to another (who has reverted at least as often), suggests that your judgment is impaired. As I wrote on the article's Talk page, the source identified by Oren.tal has as much to do with Haaretz as it does with George W. Bush — in other words, it says nothing about Haaretz. As Oren.tal continues to demonstrate, months of trawling the internet for websites that use "Haaretz" and "left wing" produces nothing but garbage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please I need permission
Dear Neon White; I like your words "I live behind a computer and don't advertise myself" and I want to use a them or derive words from. --Puttyschool (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm not claiming any ownership of those words. Do whatever you like. -- neon white talk 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Paramore
What is this then "Paramore are proving they're part of the competition to other alternative bands out there at the moment." --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out were that says their genre is alternative rock. -- neon white talk 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Paramore are proving they're part of the competition to other alternative bands out there at the moment." --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At no point does that say they are alternative rock. -- neon white talk 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They call them alternative in that paragraf, alternative is short for alternative rock. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternative is an abjective that has multiple meanings. -- neon white talk 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What other kind of alternative do you feel is implied? The abnd describes themselves on purevolume.com as Rock/Emo/Alternative, Amazon.com lists them under Alternative Rock, ArtistDirect.com considers them Alternative Rock, Ticketnetwork.com sells tickets to their shows as an Alternative Rock group, etc.  I believe they are mostly-considered pop-punk, but they are certainly also considered (by themselves and industry and fans) as alt-rock. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that according to the Wikipedia article for Alternative Rock "alternative rock (also called alternative music, alt-rock or simply alternative; known primarily in the UK as indie) is a genre of rock music that emerged in the 1980s and became widely popular in the 1990s." Hope this helps clarify. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that has to do with it. Fans are not a reliable source. -- neon white talk 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Is the word "fans" the only thing you read in my entire comment?  First off, they are in fact, reliable.  Perhaps not verifiable or encyclopedic.  That aside, the fact that the band considers themselves alternative rock and that the music industry considers them alternative rock means that the concept of them being considered alt-rock is reliable AND verifiable. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The bands is as irrelevant as yours and there are no sources been provided. It has been pointed out that all info needs reliable sources. We dont base articles on your personal opinion. End of discussion. -- neon white talk 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you INTENTIONALLY only reading one word per comment that I make. WHO would determine a band's genre OTHER than themselves?!  Typically, yes, sources for information should be external.  HOWEVER, when editing that a band is a particular genre, their OWN interpretation of their music IS relevant.  In fact, THIS is exactly what should be the determining factor into what genre they are considered.  Please keep reading past the first few sentences.  However, like I stated the past three times I commented... fans consider them alt-rock, they consider themselves alt-rock, and the music industry considers them alt-rock.  Please don't confuse my exasperation and frustration as anger.  I feel as though you are purposefully ignoring the content of my comments.  Perhaps, and hopefully, I am incorrect with regard to you ignoring me. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a dictatorship. Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. YOU stated this "Wikipedia is based an reliable sources, if they say they are, then they are. --Neon white (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)" on the Paramore talk page. In context you were stating if the band says they are EMo they are.  You went on to argue the opposite.  Anyway, the industry also considers them alt-rock (which i DID provide you with sources of above)... Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
I'm most likely not going to be around tomorrow. Will you keep an eye on User:Tq6993? I believe you are familiar with this user so I'll not elaborate a great deal :). If he deletes sourced content again will you give him a level 4 warning, then report if he still continues. I try to assume good faith, but sometimes it is hard. I think the policies are pretty clear cut, don't you? Some editors just don't get it though, and usually in these situations they never do. I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. I could be, in fact hope I'm wrong though. Anyways, keep an eye out for him/her if you can. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Ok, thanks Landon1980 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note... I believe 207.192.196.230 (talk) might be his IP address as someone using that IP made a comment ( [ diff] ) on Talk:Michael Winslow and then replaced the IP's signature of the comment with his ( [ diff] ). In addition to that, a comment was posted on your talk page (Neon white) by that IP ( [ diff] ), but was removed by the same IP ( [ diff] ) and later re-posted by Tq6993 ( [ diff] ). --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC

My Talk Page
Er, was that an accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikikid (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yes ignore it. -- neon white talk 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil Wickham re-write
I recently re-wrote the Phil Wickham article, and I was hoping you could give it a look. The article was originally not sourced (the only source on the page was not a link to the cited material), and read like a label bio for an artist. I've posted a note in the talk page for the artist, but I was hoping I could get an opinion from an outside party. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good but check out Citing sources and Citation templates, the citations could do with some naming. -- neon white talk 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks a lot better than it did. What Neon pointed out is all I see. Landon1980 (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A request
Could you delete the Click house article? I asked another person to do it, but I got no response. It has no sources, it's the same thing as Microhouse, and it's made up. Also, could you fix the release date in the box in Seeing Sounds? Noble12345 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your redirect to Bob Bryar
Hello, I was wondering in what way this article fails WP:MUSIC and should have a redirect.  Orfen   T • C 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesnt seem to be any assertions of any kind of notability in the article and it mostly consists of unsourced trivia and fancruft. -- neon white talk 08:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
You should make the comment first then after consensus is formed change to redirects. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * non-controversial redirects don't really need discussion. If it's obvious they fail notability policy then being WP:BOLD is acceptable. -- neon white talk 08:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why not send it to an AfD or merge the material into the main article? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There really isnt any sourced info worth merging, most is extremely trivial and the rest unsourced. -- neon white talk 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Packaging engineering
Hi! Sorry, I didn't realize that you were offering a third op on this dispute. Could you remove any dispute that you are working on from the dispute list on WP:3? That way, no one else will come along and interrupt what you're doing, Thanks! :-)  fr33k man   -s-  19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok for multiple opinions to be given on the same dispute, in fact it often helps, i believe they are removed from the list when the issue is considered resolved. -- neon white talk 23:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people like an additional opinion, some don't; I've had comments both ways. Regarding, the listings; If you check on the WP:3 page the instructions say "'When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.'" Cheers, :-)  fr33k man   -s-  00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Used
You reversed my edit of the List of emo artists list along with several others with a minor edit with a vandalism justification. As the link to the alleged supporting reference was dead, the reference did not satisfy WP:V. While some of the other edits you reversed may have been vandalism, this certainly was not. Please be more careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I repaired the reference. A reference is not required to have a URL to be valid. -- neon white talk 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Emo Artists
Can you please stop undoing my taking Rise Against off the Emo page, they are not an emo band, not even close as it clearly lists all over the internet that they are a punk band. There is no reference anywhere that says they are, especially the one that is linked to them on the emo page, that is a link to fall out boy, weather they can be linked on the same site doesnt mean anything because you can link anyone to any site, it doesnt mean they are the same genre. So please stop switching it back unless you can show a reliable source that says they are an emo bamd which they aren't if you even look on there main page it says no where on it about being emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are removing valid sourced information. This is disruptive to the article. The article clearly cites the group among a list of 'emo icons'. The article is titles 'Finding Emo', it opens with the paragraph "Is emo a movement, a catchphrase or just a euphemism for guys with guitars and mascara? Fans and pundits can debate its definition, but we recommend checking out the alternately earnest and explosive music made in its name. For your consideration, here's a lineup of emo icons past and present." It then provides a twenty page gallery of 'emo icons' each with a brief description outlining their importance to the genre. On page 8 is Rise Against who, according to the article "took the emotional cue to a broader scale. They're open about their political beliefs and lifestyles (very PETA-supporting and very vegetarian), and even their name is a public call to action."


 * Wikipedia is not written based on your, or anyone else's personal opinions. It is based on reliable sources, if you have a dispute use the talk page. Continuing to disrupt the page will result in further warnings. -- neon white talk 09:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neon white is right, if anything, Wikipedia is written based on his opinion. ;-) Cedars (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you agree that he is right though, when you just contridicted what he said. He said its not oppinion, then you wrote, "hes write it IS oppinion" that doesn't make sense, but regardless it isnt an oppinion this is a fact. Just because they got mixed up in one article doesnt mean they should forever be linked to that. Try to find that anywhere else and you cant. But what you can find is 8 million places that say they are a punk band, not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide some sources that say they are not. -- neon white talk 20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scene (youth subculture)
You've !voted twice on the page - for Delete and then Delete & redirect - do you want to remove one? Black Kite 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck the first in favour of a revision. -- neon white talk 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)
Hi Hmm, I removed my speedy tag and redirected to the parent album, per previous discussion. I hope that's OK, even though you just added the hangon? If not let me know please. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

AIV
For your recent request, the user had not received a final warning and had not edited since the level three warning. Please do not report users to AIV unless they are currently vandalizing after a final warning. لenna vecia  13:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is current vandalism and the ip has a major history of being regualrly used solely for vandalism. This is a bigger issue than just the most recent vandalism. -- neon white talk 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Klaxons band members
Are you sure that these band members weren't notable enough to keep their own pages? They seemed to have some amount of information on them, some of them at least. I would have said that Jamie Reynolds or Simon Taylor-Davis should have been kept. Do you think otherwise? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only one i thought had slight notability outside the band would be Jamie Reynolds who, as the article notes, has played with The Chavs, the issue is that it seems has wasnt part of the group merely appeared with them as a guest which makes it less significant. Can you explain why you think Simon Taylor-Davis is notable? If you wish to contest this and further discuss it i am happy to revert the merges and set up a proposal. It seems that alot of the properly sourced info in the article is either already in the Klaxons article or can easily be incorporated. -- neon white talk 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think here, you cannot just go around deleting pages without putting them up on AFD. Please go through the proper channels. Bienfuxia (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The pages weren't deleted, they were redirected, and WP:BRD is a widely accepted way of editing. In particular, Simon Taylor-Davis has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band", so per WP:MUSIC it should be redirected to the band (only judging by the article though). If an article fails the inclusion guideline, and a sensible redirect target exists, then redirecting it is the first thing to do. Only after a revert and preferrably a discussion at Talk:Klaxons should it be brought to AfD. -- Amalthea Talk 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (temporary TPS)
 * I'm aware that technically these were "redirections" but it amounts to the same thing. There has been no discussion, perhaps Neon white would like to start one. Bienfuxia (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, he has. Sorry, got ahead of myself there. Bienfuxia (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A deletion can only be done by an admin and removes the page entirely, usually this requires an afd (unless it meets criteria for speedy deleteion). With a merge/redirect the page still exists, complete with it's history and talk page. The info is moved to a different article. Should someone search the term they will be redirected to a relevent page with the info they require. Merges require no discussion, to quote "'Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. 'you cannot do that without discussion' is not a good argument'" A proposal has been made. -- neon white talk 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD:John Dahlbäck
Just wanted to say thanks for sticking up for me at Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck. I must admit I was quite pissed off for getting the article deleted right under my nose just hours after creating it, and I just instinctively thought that this had to be wrong in some way. There is a lot I could have done differently when dealing with this though. Not least since I misdirected some criticism due to poor understanding of the CSD process. I could also have used a different tone when interacting with some of the contributors, but I honestly don't think I was any more uncivil than my adversary, and frankly I think that warning was a bit excessive, but if you disagree and think I was over the top in the whole discussion, could you please tell me, because then I'm obviously in some sort of denial that I need to snap out of.

Oh, and I never got why no-one agreed that his productions as referenced through Discogs was notable, that assertion of notability was basically ignored. Was the labels too small and independent, or are just Discogs not considered reliable? Cheers, Sebisthlm (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome but i wasnt really sticking up for you as such, just making sure that the process is done correctly and articles of worth are not deleted for lack of effort in tracking down sources. I think several editors in the discussion could have been more friendly though were no serious personal attacks. The problem with discogs is that it's hard to verify, i think it's user editable so we can't trust it's accuracy. I'd stick to using the billboard.com/allmusic bio which is reliable. -- neon white talk 00:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this post came out a bit corny. Of course I realize you didn't stick up for me personally. I also appreciate your analysis on the tone of the debate, a view I share completely. Also, thanks for the Billboard link. Discogs is by no means perfect, and even if it is being used much, I see the problems with that for the reasons you stated. Sebisthlm (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector
Hi. After 5 days expired since you proposed deletion of Rockdetector I deleted the page but Lykantrop contacted me by providing by one or two references to media. You can check my talk page for the whole discussion. Since the page is heavily linked by other pages in Wikipedia I decided to restore the article. If you still believe that the article has to be deleted, I think is better to start to take it for AfD. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

NME
I would like to know why you keep deleting the extra critisicm added on the NME page, it a comment one of the writers amde and I believe it deserves every right to be kept in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.26.142 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only ever deleted this once. This was because it is an unsourced personal opinion. Talk a read of WP:NOR. "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." However if the info can be sourced feel free to add it with proper citations. -- neon white talk 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put it under the critiscism section more than once. If I were to make a reference to the issue the writer for the NME said it, and a reply from an angry fan would that be enough to warrant it be added? Because ultimately it is impossible to find a link as they do not publish their issues online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableandy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which magazine was it published in? Can you an source a serious controversy over these comments? i doubt the sole fact that a music magazine has opinions on music is that remarkable. -- neon white talk 12:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was published In the NME magazine, NME writer James McMahon stated in NME june 21st "ska punk is the most wretched music ever conceived." It ended up featuring responses the following issue such as "For that ignorant comment alone Mr James McMahon I could quite happily walk up to you in the street and garrotte you with my old Sublime T-shirt." by a reader named Karl Frome. Surely people writing into the magazine means that people found it controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disposableandy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which second party source covered it? We can hardly add every single comment the magazine has ever made about music. -- neon white talk 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks for the warning, but I think there has been a misunderstanding. Here you write that I have taken my personal attacks to the 3RR board, when all I was trying to do there was defend myself from a patently false charge that I violated 3RR. I don't believe I acted rudely, but if you think I have, I will of course defer to your judgement as an administrator. However, please at least understand why it was necessary for me to defend myself on that board. If someone tells a lie about another person and that other person knows it's a lie and has the evidence to prove that this is indeed the case, wouldn't it then be incumbent upon that other person to set the record straight; to clear his or her name as it were? Causteau (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

James Frey
In the James Frey Talk Page, you stated that Amazon should not be used. I was using Amazon for the purpose of citing the three Editorial Reviews (from magazines) not the user/reader reviews. My whole point was that Littlemunk did not present any rationale for using only positive reviews. My argument was that if Amazon chooses to use certain reviews, then there is some reason to believe that those reviews are representative and/or come from prominent/respectable publications. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I have clarified on the article's Talk page. --JamesAM (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

e.d's
I am taking this topic to your talk page as it is going to stray off the main topic at the music notability guidlines. Endorsement Deals, as I explained, are given to many many MANY people. You made the comment "There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product" and that is untrue. You are only looking at a very small part of the whole picture. Of course it also depends on how you define "nobody", in your case you seem to saying anyone who is not of the stature of David Gilmore is a nobody, and that is very much not true either. If Wikipedia allowed an endorsement as one of the allowed criteria you would have swarms of new articles based solely on that. As an example - An author or a writer might sit alone using a pen and it would not make much sense for a "nobody" to be endorsed by a pen company. However a "nobody" musician can be seen by hundreds to thousands of other musicians via websites such as You Tube or Myspace. They can been seen at live shows, local or not, battle of the bands or not, high school or arena. They can be heard on a demo or other recording either for sale at shows or posted on the internet. Any fans or musicians who hear or see the artist might go "Woah! That sound is killer! What are they using?" It is understandable how editors might feel that only "somebody's" are allowed to get endorsement deals but that is not true by any means. It makes perfect business sense for companies to seek out new talent to give their products to. It makes even more sense for a new company to seek out talent to use their products. Clapton, Beck and Hendrix helped to put the Fender Stratocaster on the map but has every person who has ever picked up the same instrument been "Notable"? No. Eddie Van Halen had a Kramer endorsement but did ever other musician who also had one get as much attention? No. Of course it is always easier to get "free stuff" when you are already "famous" but I was not joking when I said that the NAMM trade show is a living, breathing, "advertisement" for endorsement deals. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, i doubt you could find an artist that wasn't otherwise notable. An unheard of artist of little note isn't going to be very effective as an endorser. I think you're confusing endorsement deals which are contractural agreements and require publicity appearances etc. with promotional givaways which are not contractual, have no obligations and have a very different purpose; to raise brand awareness in a certain demographic rather than to associate a product with a trusted figured, which would naturally require the endorser to be known by enough of a tagert market for the endorsment to be worthwhile. Of course you can have person's of limited local fame endorsing smaller local companies but what we are really taking about here is notable companies. --neon white talk 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure how to approach this. Ok - please define, in your own words, what a "nobody" is. We can start with that. Than compare that to how you define "notable", not Wikipedia. If you define it based on Wikipedia WP:MUSIC I can assure you that hundred of artists who have endorsement deals do not meet those 12 "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For a 'nobody', we are talking aboutr a person with a limited sphere of influence. i.e. no-one outside of an immediate circle. I doubt your claims, endorsement naturally requires some amount of media coverage, how can you endorese something if nobody knows who you are and the fact your endorsing something? --neon white talk 11:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

←:::Live shows and the internet and two ways people will see, and hear, an artist. Media exposure does not equal "fame" nor does having an endorsement deal. I know Wikipedia discredits "Myspace bands" however the internet has truly changed the way a band can market their selves. "some amount of media coverage" can be found in many places, from a local paper to the local television news to "user submitted" news online. Any of that could be used to find some sort of endorsement deal. You asked "how can you endorese something if nobody knows who you are and the fact your endorsing something?" and I have already tried to answer that but I apologize if I have not been clear. Let me try again to explain. If there was a band who played cover tunes, or was a tribute band, and they played live they would be a band that could be seen. They may not have any albums, "a record certified gold or higher", a "charted hit on any national music chart", any "notable musician", won or been nominated for "a major music award", had music in a film or TV show, had any airplay or "been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network". The band may get some local media coverage, aside from a concert listing. This band may not be known "outside of an immediate circle" yet they still might be able to get an endorsement deal. Why? Because they are a band that is playing live shows, they can be seen. Now if they have a Myspace and Facebook account and videos up on You Tube or Myspace video they may be known "outside of an immediate circle", even a better chance of finding an endorsement deal. But lets go back in time a bit - to the 80's and 90's when metal was huge and "Shredders" were not known "outside of an immediate circle". A label like Shrapnel Records was releasing albums left and right and many of the artists had endorsement deals. Yet "outside of an immediate circle" of GIT students and other guitarists people had never heard of many of these guitarists. But before the reason of "But they had a record out" comes into play there were many local, unsigned, sunset strip hair band who were doing pay to play shows that had endorsement deals. Having an album is not needed. There are bands who have endorsement deals right now who do not have any albums out, nor are they really known "outside of an immediate circle". Bands that have never played outside of their local area and have received little press outside of local media. i will cite one example here, the same example I cited in the main discussion, Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy. Here is a bass player who plays with a local band (Fusebox Funk) that has put out their own CD's, financed by their (former) drummer, received local coverage (the band, not the bass player - the cited articles were done before Cary was in the band) played as a local support act and "outside of an immediate circle" is unknown. Yet he has an endorsement deal with Warwick and it can be verified by going to the official warwick website: Cary Jordin bio and Famous US Warwick Players. And you can see an ad slick featuring Cary: Warwick Ad. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S - I thought this was interesting. I came across Articles for deletion/Randy Lane and did some research and found he has an Endorsement deal. In wondering why it was not on the article page I noticed a comment in the AfD: "I'll attempt to remove all of the spam links, sponsorship stuff, and misc unencyclopedic information." So I looked at the diffs : October 7, 2008 diff. The reason I mention this is because, again, there is nothing that says this kind of information can not be used so an editor has to feel it falls under WP:SPAM or WP:PROMOTION before it is questioned. In this case it was questioned and the subject of the article is somewhat notable by who has hired him. But the question really is "Is the fact he has been hired to be part of a back up band and has an endorsement deal enough?" You can see for yourself how the AfD is going, endorsement deal or not. I do not feel it needs to be that hard for someone to look at the obvious (WP:MUSIC) and not see something like "Endorsement Deal" specifically mentioned as it is very closely tied to musician. (As much as a sponsorship deal is for auto racers) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This individual qualifies as notable by being part of several notable bands. You seem to be confusing what is allowed as content (providing it is sourced which this wasnt) with what can be used as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who seem to be confused. This is about endorsement deal advertising and promo and how they are being used, or not used, to assert notability. I cited the Afd above so you could see how an active discussion is going and how another Editor "got it" about endorsement deals being a form of advertising which falls under WP:SPAM or WP:PROMOTION. See you at NAMM? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Fair enough, but for the record before I made that last edit to The China Probrem I stated my views clearly on the talkpage of the user who was reverting my edits and on the talkpage of the article itself. I was hoping to get him/her and the other users to discuss what they're doing first instead of simply reverting without reason. I'll leave it to the talk page to discuss this to try and get a discussion going with them for now in light of the warning. Alastairward (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war and you are both involved in multiple reverts. I suggest both parties resolve the dispute before editing. As i have suggested if you have doubts about the reliability of sources post them on Reliable sources/Noticeboard --neon white talk 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder.......
I will never contribute to a discussion again, without permission. Thank you for setting me straight. Especially when an article is not NPOV. I realize now that my contributions to various discussions were against the main stream. Next time I see a problem with an article I will keep it to myself and assume that it must have had consensus or it wouldn't be in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusations of 'bad faith', conspiracies and censorship are not assuming good faith and are not appropriate. Editing is not helped ny users making wikipedia into a battleground. Check your civility and you will likely find discussions easier. --neon white talk 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Interactive fiction
Just in case you weren't watching Talk:Interactive fiction, I think your concerns about the notability of the competition have been addressed by myself and another editor. I would welcome your further thoughts. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery AfD
Thank you for your input on the AfD on Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery AfD. I am always a little unclear as to what one can and cannot say in an AfD, and the correct Wikiquette so thanks for taking the time to chip in, it is much appreciated. All the best. Paul75 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Paramore
Hello, I reverted some edits on Paramore using Twinkle, and when I filled in the reason for doing so, I accidentally clicked cancel, so unfortunately, there's no edit summary. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. no-one else does. --neon white talk 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)