User talk:Nouse4aname/Archive 3

Phil Kline
Please try to at least look at the links before you tag notable composers for speedy deletion. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, so a single line "Phil Kline is an American composer. Many of his works are moving sound sculptures include boomboxes." is somehow sufficient to claim notability. A reader should not have to look at links to find notability, it should be inherent in the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inherent in the article. Try reading the "discography" section, or are you not familiar with the notability guidelines?  Obviously, you are not. I see on your talk page that you've been having problems with speedy deletion tagging for some time.  I suggest you stop. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no links to any of those albums, it does not state what record company released them. To be notable, quoting WP:MUSIC "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". There was no indication as to whether these albums were released by a major label or not. As per speedy deletion criteria A7, the article failed to "indicate why its subject is important or significant". I am fully familiar with the guidelines thank you. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil Kline is a famous American composer who has 14 recordings to his credit and has been recognized by just about every major media outlet. When you tagged the article, it listed four recordings, one of which linked to Ethel (string quartet), a notable string quartet that Kline plays with and is signed to a notable label.  So, your assessment was in error, and I maintain that you are not familiar with the guidelines.  For goodness sake, look at your talk page!  Have you got the message yet? Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think, by tagging the article it has enabled you to improve it, thus improving the encyclopedia. Perhaps you are annoyed that if you hadn't come across it, the article would have been deleted by someone unfamiliar with him, because at that time the article actually failed A7... It is not my fault that the article failed to do it's job properly. Within the article, there was no clear assertion of notability. What good is an encyclopedia that doesn't clearly explain why the subject of an article actually deserves an article? Again, I am perfectly familiar with the guidelines, if people insist on creating incomplete articles, that is not my fault. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I will thank you to remain civil in future. There is no message to get. People get annoyed that I tag their favorite band article for deletion, most of them end up deleted, some of them end up restored, with additional content added to actually meet the necessary guidelines. I suggest you stop getting so worked up over something so minor. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a message to get, and it's obvious you haven't got it. Don't add speedy tags to articles that you aren't sure about.  And if you want to add a tag, make sure you check if the subject is notable before doing so.  I don't appreciate having to cleanup after your mess. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. For your part, I suggest you read WP:Civil. Or maybe just go and have a go at whoever created a sub standard article in the first place... As I have stated before, the article failed to assert any notability. I am sorry I am not as cultured as you, and am not familiar with this person, but at that time the simple fact is the article failed A7. I shouldn't have to check if the subject is notable, like I said, it should be obvious from the article. In this case it wasn't. Furthermore, it was not "my mess". The article as created was "a mess", I tagged it to get rid of it. In the end, it meant that it got improved, so even better. What would you suggest would be better? Just leave it as it was? What good is that? I really cannot see why you are so worked up over this... Nouse4aname (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just finished explaining to you that the discography section met the notability guideline before you tagged it. It may be a surprise to you, but we do not tag articles to "get rid of them".  I think your purpose on Wikipedia is at odds with its continued existence.  Just as people who drink alcohol shouldn't drive cars, you should not be tagging notable articles for deletion without reading them.  Instead of tagging the article, you should have noticed the discography and clicked on the link to the string quartet.  Instead, you ignored it, and claimed it didn't meet the criteria.  Also, the external links were in place before you tagged the article, and clearly documented his notability.  I suggest removing that blindfold before tagging another article as you aren't helping improve Wikipedia.  How many articles have you had deleted?  How many of them should still be here?  You're not helping this site.  What kind of benefit does Wikipedia derive from your blind speedy tags?  None. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am quickly losing my patience with you responses. The article did not assert any notability. It is no good linking to another article to loosely try an assert notability there, or providing external links for readers to make up their own minds. The article should specifically state why the subject is notable, within the article. Not through having to click on links and look elsewhere. Considering to get speedy tagged articles deleted, you require two people to agree, I maintain that all articles that have been deleted because I tagged them should have been deleted. It seems you are unable to accept that this article would have been deleted if you hadn't come across it first, and are now taking it out of me. Now please, calm down and quit harassing me. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To recap, when you tagged Phil Kline for deletion, the discography section listed 4 of his 14 albums, one of which was directly linked to the Ethel (string quartet) and listed his record label. Kline meets and exceeds the criteria for notability, and instead of reading the article, you mistakenly tagged it for speedy deletion.  If you do it again, I'm going to file an ANI report on you.  Have a great day. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To recap, the article had one line, four albums an internal link and two external links. Nowhere in that article did it assert any notability for this person. As I keep saying, and as you keep ignoring, there was no assertion of notability in the article. Again, as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, linking to another article or external link is not enough to satisfy notability. I can see you're a really nice person, who doesn't let the little things in life bother them too much, so I'm going to ignore your unnecessary, and downright rude threat and wish you a good day too. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. The article listed four albums, all notable. That meets criterion 5, and the link in the article listed the record label.  Notability was established before you erroneously tagged the article.  This is a notability guideline. It is not meant to supersede common sense and good judgment.   Instead of hiding behind rules and guidelines that you obviously don't understand, try writing an article. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The albums must be released by a major record label to be notable ("Has released two or more albums on a major label..."). The label was not declared on the article page, doesn't matter if it is elsewhere, that is besides the point. Yes, it's a guideline, one which the article previously failed. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be dishonest. Criterion 5 says ...or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).  Before you made the mistake of tagging this article, the link to the album Ethel led to Kline's string quartet, which listed it as Cantaloupe Music, which is distributed by Harmonia Mundi.  I hope that clears up your misconception and that it doesn't happen again.  This is my last post on this topic, as I'm fairly confident you've finally learned your lesson. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, way to go, now call me a liar. Well done, way to remain civil. I quoted the criterion fully a towards the start of the discussion. I am well aware that a major indie label is also acceptable. The point is not what the record label was, but that it wasn't stated  in the article, thus the discography did not meet criterion 5. I hope that clears it up for you. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How arrogant can you get? The lesson is not mine to learn. I have fully explained my actions, it is not my fault that you refuse to accept or understand them. Please also take some time to learn how to remain a little more civil with people in future. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shake a Leg
Hi there, you recently changed the Shake a Leg article to a redirect, which I completely agree with - I prodded that article once and got some abuse for it. I successfully prodded a large number of AC/DC song articles but there are a hell of a lot more that fail the criteria you say "Shake a Leg" failed. Should we try to deal with the others or is it not worth the trouble we will undoubtedly bring upon ourselves? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds like a plan! You're right about prods being removed, I had that happen a few times and went to AfD. I'll start with a couple of songs that shouldn't raise people's blood pressure too much, before attempting some of the "fan favourites". Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree - there are a lot of articles that run along those lines. I just hate those "interpretations"! I'll start slowly and see what happens! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you've done your fair share! We are making good progress, and I'm amazed that no-one has protested yet. Time will tell! The Highway to Hell and Back in Black albums are the ones that might cause the upset though - hopefully it'll be painless! Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Misc
I replied to your question where it was asked. Have an excellent day. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 10:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry Twister
Hello - your comment said that the "top 200" claim had no reference. How about actually reading the References section before blindly nominating for deletion? We're trying to build a body of knowledge here, please don't be so quick to tear it down. Thanks for your consideration... Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. At any rate, since then the "200" ref has been explicitly cited. Geĸrίtz (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! Tagging it caused improvements. I'm glad you didn't tag for quick deletion -- I've had that done before, on articles of great notability. Have a nice weekend too... Geĸrίtz (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disconnected (song)
I just added a reference to the Disconnected article, so that we wouldn't argue about redirecting it anymore. Alex (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was happy to work on the Disconnected article, as I knew it was significant enough of a song that I'd be able to dig up some sources. If you come across any other punk (or alternative/hardcore/ska/etc.) single articles that you're unsure of, please feel free to give me a heads-up on my talk page and I'll see if there's anything I can do for them. I've got a huge library of albums and quite a few books, magazines, etc. laying around that could serve as source material. I want to point out something general, though: I notice that the Disconnected article was less than 90 minutes old when you took it to AfD, and it appeared to be in response to a mini-edit war between you and User:Alex 101. This wasn't really a good idea. Remember WP:IMPERFECT: Most articles start as poor stubs, but over time they get developed into something great. Obviously if a new article is blatantly a hoax, copyvio, etc. then you can take it to AfD straight away (or just prod it for speedy deletion), but that clearly wasn't the case here. We know this is a legit song, and that it's from a legit album by a legit act. So, rather than jumping straight to AfD, it would have been a better idea to place some maintenance tags on the article, maybe even suggest a merge, and start a conversation on the article's talk page before going to AfD. You could even have notified the relevant Wikiprojects (WP:SONGS and WP:PUNK) to see if they were interested in working on it (I only happened to stumble across it because I clicked over to AfD on a whim...if I hadn't, I'd have never known the article was in need of help). If none of these methods produced any interest or improvements after a reasonable length of time, then you could proceed to AfD because it appears that the article can't be improved (maybe because sources don't exist). But you need to give it a WP:CHANCE first. As I said in the AfD, I consider myself a deletionist: I generally !vote to delete much more often than keep. But first I take a look at the article & its talk page & history, to see how old it is, how many contributors it's had, and if it's within the scope of any Wikiprojects. If I'm still unsure, I'll do a google search or something to judge whether sources might exist. Many articles are pretty clearly either a keep or delete, but with topics like songs it takes a little more investigating and judgement to decide what to do with them. Certainly there are a lot of song articles that could and should be deleted or merged, but generally if it's a song that was released commercially as a single, and certainly if it charted, then that's enough of a base to start an article from. Anyway, if you come across any more song articles like this definitely drop me a line and I'll see if I can help out with them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Spectre (musician)
I would be grateful if you could take another look at this article - I have expanded it and added multiple references, and I feel that WP:MUSIC is clearly satisfied now. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for editing the dawn of ashes page, changed the stuff i added around, it looks alot better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.96.137 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave Keuning
Instead of rushing to revert, would you give me a chance to expand the article and add sources? As to meeting WP:MUSIC, as that is a guidline and not policy it is up to the individual editor. And I question wether or not he truly fails, seeing as he has written or co-written several hit songs. I won't revert you until I've actually found sources... but for future reference discussion should always be neccessary before such massive edits. --MichiganCharms (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Provide proof that he fails.And WP:MUSIC clearly states that failure doesn't qualify an article for a speedy delete. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Jeff Killed John (JKJ Album)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jeff Killed John (JKJ Album), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Thed tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jeff Killed John (JKJ Album) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jeff Killed John (JKJ Album), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to Reason Tour
Hi. I know you nominated the above article for deletion over a week ago, and I see that it hasn't been deleted yet, despite a clear consensus and the five day limit being reached several days ago. Could you contact an admin or some other appropriate editor to get this article deleted per consensus? Tim meh  !  21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World: Band Members
I noticed you deleted the pages for all of the band members and redirected their names to the band's page, why is that? It says no mention outside of the band(or something like that), but for instance, Jim Adkins has his own record company and is involved in various side projects. There is now no bio on him or the other members on wikipedia. I am new to wikipedia, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the articles meet the criteria for Music on Wikipedia?--98.26.61.168 (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for conciliating the incident between Flewis and me. I am a Chinese Wikipedian. On Chinese Wikipedia the articles' quality is less than those on English Wikipedia. So I am not familiar with the criteria of English Wikipedia.

I am a high school student. I can't write English well. It's really a shame..... Cheers Alonso McLaren (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I've placed the article up for deletion over here. Hopefully now consensus can be established :) -- Flewis (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

science magazine article on Change water to oil
Oh, can you send me a copy/paste of those 2 or 3 paragraphs? :3 --Enric Naval (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Killers
Thank you, those guidelines were all I needed to see. Even if you have good reason to revert an article, take 2 seconds and give that reason. I'm not a mind reader.
 * Ok, thanks. alohaprincess (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Common Existence
Why do you keep removing the album page for Thursday's upcomming album? Stop redirecting it to their main page. Thanks.
 * RE:so we can't leave it until more info is released? I was making it more convenient by creating the page(and formatting it)--besides, new info should be released fairly soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta tz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Williams
It is perfectly valid that this page be created. Don't remove it next time, you should nominate it for deletion first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousTF (talk • contribs) 11:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Blink-182
I agree with your rationale for the edit you made here. The table shouldn't be removed because it is mentioned in the lead. I do, however, still think it should be removed because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Blink-182 only went through one line-up change and this is adequately addressed in the body of the text. I don't think the table is necessary. What about you? — Ł ittle Ä lien  ¹8²  19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is necessary simply because only one line-up change has occurred. If Madhatter decides to remove it, I won't oppose, but I don't think I'm going to take the initiative this time.  — Ł ittle  Ä lien  ¹8²  19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: The First Step
Hi Nouse4aname! The reason is that even if an article clearly fails WP:MUSIC, this does not in any way make it eligible for speedy deletion. CSD A7 is, IMO, by far the most misinterpreted and misunderstood criterion, and many users don't realize what it was made for. This criterion should be used for articles which, as they stand, are inherently non-notable, e.g. "John Doe is a 14-year-old kid from Buffalo, New York". It is not for articles/subjects that could be notable, but you aren't sure if they are. For example, a band which apparently released 4 albums, is definitely not inherently non-notable (unless the article is a hoax). I hope the explanation was satisfactory. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not constructive?
Hi Nouse,

Why do you say my addition to the cabot circus section of wikipedia is not constructive? Don't you think people have a right to know whats near cabot circus and why the cinema mentioned there has long queues?

This site is about freedom of information, we all need to help to work toward that, i can understand you stopping random vandalism, but the information supplied is accurate and precise. Hope you can see things from my point of view here.

Thanks

Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.11.204.52 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of Hongcheng Magic Liquid
This article is censored in Mainland China. I don't know why. I am the author.

Is there anything sensitive in the text? Please check.Alonso McLaren (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff International Airport
I'm not sure that I agree with your comment here. A reader should not have to consult outside sources like that, the source should be provided in the article, especially when this is available. Though I must admit that other than this one, most of them do not say from whereabouts in the community they are located. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

30STM
I think the only way is to ask an admin to protect the redirects. I doubt an ip range block will be done or reports to the isp over this amount of disruption. --neon white talk 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 Heineken Cup: Why is Edinburgh eliminated?
They can win ther last match with bonus point and get to 15 points, the same as Leicester and Bath, currently the best 2 teams in second place. So why are they marked with red?--Nitsansh (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why remove Matt Tuck article?
Why remove Matt Tuck article? I put a lot of effort in it.I put references,write every details by my own.Veeboy (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars' page
Those are stub and we can help they; WikiProject Stub sorting. --Loverdrive (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

newt
you have previously expressed an opinion on "Newt" vs "newt" on Newt (film). The topic has cropped up again, if you would care to participate. Or not. SpikeJones (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kaguya (mouse)
>You question was removed for two reasons. 1: It has no relevance to Kaguya the mouse. An >experimentally generated parthenogenetic animal has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate. 2. >The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article - this is clearly not one. Regards. >Nouse4aname (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you have NOT been paying attention to the Gay Marriage debate in the slightest. When its opponents wish to bring up a secular argument, the one they invariably bring up is the sacredness of childbearing. Using the technique described in the article, a lesbian couple could theoretically have biological children. I expect you to NOW be honourable, and do the right thing, by reinstating my Question! 71.233.230.223 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and I dont particularly care either. Please read WP:Talk_page_guidelines as to why your question will not be reinstated. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, an article on an experimental animal created by an alternative reproductive technology that results in it having two mothers, and you don't care if it has anything to do with the Gay Marriage debate. Well, as a member of the LGBT Community, I am DEEPLY offended. As I see that you do not possess Administrator credentials, either you replace my Good Faith Question, or I will! 71.233.230.223 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New Cardiff City Stadium
Please calm down.

It does no good you getting yourself wound up. There are things in the page that are wrong, some that need tidying up. Some people contributing aren't experts on RS. I'll try to tidy up and get things to conform as far as possible, but right now it seems you're going in with a bull in a china shop mentality. You're on the verge of 3RR, silly to get blocked. The "18 date" thing - difficult to link to without being able to link to the contract - if you can find that available on the web, would be great. It does exist in the contract, and has caused a rift between the two clubs. Minkythecat (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to clear things up. This whole arguing, especially given you are setting yourself up as an expert, infuriates newer posters.  I'd seriously advise you to just look to other pages for a bit, just step back, relax. Minkythecat (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. From the looks of things, there's an influx of new posters  there.  As I'm sure you're well aware, the renting by bthe Blues has been contraversial and isn 't welcomed by a large number of fans of both clubs.  Can you appreciate that dismissing such new posters can appear condescending and patronising, regardless of you intending to or not?  Just let things settle down a bit. Minkythecat (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's highly unlikely they are the same user as anyone with net knowledge would know. Equally, your edits have been mentioned on a cardiff city board, hence highly unsurprising people have arrived.  I'm speaking to you as an experienced editor to ty to reduce some of the heat on that page, rest of time trying to tidy it up. All I'm saying is that, experienced editor or not, you're somebody who predominently edits rugby pages.  That in itself has rubbed a few people up the wrong way. Minkythecat (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an article
If you're going to delete an article on Alex Gaskarth, why not delete these as well. They don't meet the criteria either. All I ask for is some fairness. I was still working on the Alex Gaskarth article, adding information and such.

Matt Tong Russell Lissack Gordon Moakes Kele Okereke

12.185.22.200 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And I get the feeling you're not even going to reply, since you don't seem to reply to anything. You just do something and move on, never to look back. 12.185.22.200 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember to assume good faith always. He has redirected the Matt Tong article, but he hasn't touched the others. I suppose that he looked at all four of them and he only found a problem with the first one, so he redirected it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Katie White
I have reverted your redirecting of Katie White on the grounds that she is notable under the notability criteria that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I have cited several examples but there are countless others, including TV and radio programmes over half an hour in length, newspaper articles about her etc. Please don't just revert it back again without giving it proper consideration Thruxton (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

bmibaby
Though it is a name, that is a misleading concept as in the real world not 'wikiworld' it's actually 'bmibaby' not Bmibaby. As wikipedia is ment to state true facts it should go by its real name, not a false 'Bmibaby' name! Thanks Zaps93 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check Talk:bmibaby and put your thoughts there. Thank You. Zaps93 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have said was rude! How about reading eBay and tell me exactly how bmi is different?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Also, the actual page starts as 'Bmibaby' just that it is shown as 'bmibaby' Get use to the fact that it is the actual name and wikipedia is to state the real name, not what 'YOU' desire. Zaps93 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My accidental revert
I just noticed I accidentally reverted you in List of pop punk bands, but you reverted it back, so it's all good.Spylab (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

bmibaby or BMIBaby?
You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Bmibaby. If you care, please weigh in again at Talk:Bmibaby. —  AjaxSmack   18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Is there a reason all your edits happen to be marked minor? Have you read the appropriate policies / guidelines? Minkythecat (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cardiff
Hi there. I've noticed you've made a few edits to Cardiff related articles so thought you might like to join WikiProject Cardiff. Please see the link for what this new project is about, how to join, and ideas on how to improve Cardiff articles. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

30 STM
Do you see 'alternative rock' in this site web? AMG doesn't reports Alternative rock, it reports only post-grunge.--Dear87 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To use 'Rock' is generic, so is better use hard rock and alternative rock. The sources that report 'emo' aren't reliable, so emo isn't the primary genre, it is post grunge and hard rock.--Dear87 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but emo isn't the primary genre.--Dear87 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tomo Milicevic and Shannon Leto's pages are stub and we can help they; WikiProject Stub sorting, so why you cancel the pages?--Dear87 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo
Swoopo is a very dangerous website that is under a lot of controversy in the United States. Many publications are defining it as a gambling website, many of which are backed up in the article. Just because something is branded as one thing, does not mean it is truly something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearrocksmoon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Date
Hi, just to let you know, when you de-link date, you put '22 April, 2009', but the English Date Format does not have commors. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your reverts to 2008–09 Magners League; per WP:DATE, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month." I think that should explain my position fairly adequately. – PeeJay 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

30 STM
AMG doesn't reports that 30 STM is rock; it's reports only post-grunge.--Dear87 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AMG brings "pop\rock" for every artist, it is as a macrogenre. The genre is post-grunge.--Dear87 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wireless Keyboard: Chat  12:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * see talk back below.

re:
if Shannon Leto and Tomo Milicevic's pages have to to redirect to the main band article, also Tyson Ritter's page have to redirect to The All-American Rejects, because the subjects fail WP:MUSIC and have insufficient referencing to warrant a separate article. you save Tyson Ritter's page saying: "he has appeared in TV in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability". So leave the page of Shannon Leto and Tomo Milicevic, because their pages have more sources than Tyson Ritter's page. do you understand?--79.47.182.161 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However Shannon Leto is an actor, so his page has to stay on wiki.By by--79.47.182.161 (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wireless Keyboard: Chat  13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess who is back...
It looks like your favorite editor has returned yet again to edit all things Used related. I am not familiar with the steps involved in flagging socks or else I would deal with this myself. Care to step in? His new identity is User:Felix 12 22. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Leto and Tomo Miličević
Dear Nouse4aname. I noted you tried to make these pages redirects, and were repeatedly reverted. I too tried to keep then as redirects, and failed. I've now put both up for AfD, Articles for deletion/Tomo Miličević, so to see if there is a consensus to keep as article or redirect.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Brent Harding
Replied to you on Talk:Brent Harding. Alex (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said on talk page, I'm going to leave the page alone for now, if that's what you want me to. If Social Distortion's upcoming album is released, do I get to add a sentence about it? Instead of re-adding it, I added the sentence about him contributing to their 2007 greatest hits album. Alex (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wales Rugby Coaches
Hi Nouseforname.

The WRU webpage http://www.wru.co.uk/21617.php confirms Robin McBryde as the Caretaker coach during Warren Gatland's tour with the British Lions. The precedent on the wiki page is to include stats for the caretaker coach during Lions tours (Lynn Howells 2001)

The WRU webpage listing you refer to (listing coaches) states Gatlands record as 16 wins hence it clearly hasnt been updated for the USA/Canada tour. When it is the USA/Canada results will be listed under McBryde as that webpage lists Lynn Howells.

Regards, Pwimageglow (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops - sorry i meant 16 matches of course. Pwimageglow (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm
First, do you want me to revert this user and/ or report? I guess these are AGF's Instead of Vandalism. I'll warn and talk for now. AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. user reported. Anyway, i tried to use huggle to message this user, but messaged myself! Wouldn't be the first time AndrewrpTally-ho! 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

jet4you.com
Do I have to take photos of the planes???? I am a jet4you pilot based in morocoo, not wales. I think I should know what we have in our fleet. Please don't change it again.--Boeing pilot (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodbooks - "aftewr" ?!
Good catch of my made-up word! Sorry. I must have been weeping too much to type properly ... DBaK (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Minkythecat (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and given you've reverted numerous times, you're right up on the 3RR line. Do be careful, edit warrior... Minkythecat (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)