User talk:Nouse4aname/Archive 4

why?
I'm not trying to have a fight here, but why did you deleated Jamie Oliver's page and redirected to Lostprophets? I'm just curious why he shouldn't have a page. Thanks please reply. from: Wooblz!

Your edit to 21st Century Breakdown
Regarding this, good catch. However, in the future I suggest you provide a source when removing untrue statements. This way, other editors have proof what you're saying is true. Tim meh  21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

CCS image
Thought you might like to give your views,. My concerns are that the image is too large when you look at other stadia pages, was misleading placed near the "Opening" section plus may give undue weight as Blues are very much the "second" side playing there. Minkythecat (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

okay, maybe
Theaudience, capital letter or not, definitely didn't have a space in. -- Bobyllib (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, you are...
you are purposefully starting an edit war. Please stop. The next time you do an unconstructive edit on the Blink 182 Reunion Tour, I will report you. Appearently, you don't seem to understand the whole idea of what is reliable information - you actually left in these tour dates and band personnel. None of these are cited - so I've removed them on the basis of no citations either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star123456789 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wooblz!
Hi there, thought you should know that the user Wobblz! decided again to recreate the articles Stuart Richardson, Lee Gaze and Jamie Oliver (musician) this morning and restore links to them on several pages. He also created an article at It's Not the End of the World But I Can See It from Here. I've redirected all these back and reverted the linking edits, and posted a friendly warning on his talk page. As you restored the redirects before, I thought you should be informed. Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Nav boxes
OK then, I was just perplexed by your edit summaries saying not to add them until the single is released rather than until an article exists. Thanks for explaining. U-Mos (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[title of show]
I have reverted your edits on this article. You really shouldnt have made such a drastic change without discussion. The show is actually called [title of show] and the only reason the article is not named that exactly is because of technical restrictions. ThanksMark E (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I disagree. Its not stylistic preferencing, it is the PUBLISHED NAME of the show and it what is always used. I am again reverting your edits and if you want to discuss it further please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. WPMOSTM is a GUIDELINE. Can I also point you to Ignore all rules which I think is quite suited to this situation.Mark E (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

cLOUDDEAD
Just wanted to point out that I believe that your changes to this article are something which ought to be an exception to the guideline (as the guideline itself says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions"). "cLOUDDEAD" has a different meaning than "Clouddead" (or the strange initial move to "Cloud dead"). The use of capitalization in such a context goes beyond "trademark" rules. The way it is framed, it allows "c loud dead" as well as "cloud dead." If we at Wikipedia reformulate it to Cloudhead, it loses part of its meaning (which is an integral part of its initial artistic formulation, unlike the examples at MOSTM such as REMAX and KISS). I see no example in the quoted guideline which actually is analogous to such an artistic rendering, and thus nothing saying (or implying) that it ought to be changed.


 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I don't want to sound like I'm being rude [reading back through what I've written, I realize I definitely do ;) sorry], but If you're going to go through an article like Doseone and change things such as cLOUDDEAD for MOSTM considerations, try to get them all. Regardless of whether or not we disagree on the particular application of a slightly obscure technical guideline, consistency is significantly more important.  Near the things you changed on this one particular article are the a missed cLOUDHEAD and ExitingARM, NOTGarfield, theFREEhoudini, (cloud dead number five), apt.A, dDamage, and DJ BAKU.  It must be noted that the de facto'' rule with artistic things such as album covers, band names, and song titles is to leave them alone, as we, as editors, do not know what information is meant to be conveyed by the particular formulation .  The examples on MOSTM are geared quite specifically to trademarks to avoid aesthetic irregularities such as REMAX which clearly have no complex intentions behind them.  However, it does not really address art, and it seems improper to attempt to apply it without deliberation.
 * We wouldn't be as presumptuous as simple Wikipedia editors to change this, which is in the ee cummings article:
 * i thank You God for most this amazing
 * day:for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
 * and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything
 * which is natural which is infinite which is yes
 * So why would we mess around with names artists have chosen to represent themselves or their songs / albums? If we wouldn't change the internal framing of a piece of art, why change the external framing?  This is a completely different consideration than trademarks.


 * Okay, I don't think I adequately explained my reasoning last night. In the middle of the night another example came to me: the artist will.i.am.  His name is William.  We do not change the title of his article from "will.i.am" to simply "William."  There would be a loss of information.  In this example it is rather obvious what other meaning his stage name is meant to convey.  With some other examples such as cLOUDDEAD, it is not as obvious, and we may not even know the intent (I don't), thus we should default to not changing it.  REMAX and KISS and Thirtysomething obviously lose nothing in an interpretive sense.  With respect to reliable sources you mentioned, everything the artist produces is a source for their name.  We don't need interpretive reliable sources in order to follow de facto styling.  We should default with leaving it be if there's any chance the name was meant to be convey more than a need for all caps on a billboard.  The guideline is meant to apply to trademarks and unambiguous art stylings (i.e. "KISS").  None of the examples given apply to intentional artistic renderings.  That is not the original intent nor scope of the guideline.
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GANGgajang
I recently noticed that you moved GANGgajang to Ganggajang unfortunately this was an error on your part as the correct name of the band is GANGgajang not Ganggajang, with the capitalisation of the first four letters in the band's name, I have reverted it back to the orginal but next time before making changes can you actually check the article. Dan arndt (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree. I've checked WP:NC and it would appear that based on the overarching objectives, using the most easily recognized name; using the mane most prevalent in reliable sources; and using the name most readers are likely to search by that the article should be GANGgajang not Ganggajang. I've also had a look at WP:NC (common names) which would seem to support my view. In saying that I am happy for somebody who is more versed and has a greater understanding in these issues than I have to give some clear directions on the correct name for this article. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.
I just AIV'd the editor. After checking his talk history I saw a huge record of warnings (including a "final"). So I gave him a(nother) final. Within 5 seconds it was blanked. So he's off to AIV.
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 08:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think User:HiMyNameIsTom is just a sockpuppet? He just blanked your comment.  I don't know how to request a check; do you?
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, check these:
 * Special:Contributions/Wooblz!
 * Special:Contributions/HiMyNameIsTom
 * Pretty similar and coincidental timings too!
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 08:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NEW
How is Tyson Ritter not worthy of a Wikipedia page he fits nearly all of the criteria. ?? Tyb222 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

30 STM
All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. The genre is post grunge and neo prog. If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here. Please, discuss on the talk page before edit.--Loverdrive (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the heading "Genre" or "Styles" you read "emo"? No.--Loverdrive (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If A Beautiful Lie is emo, it was referred like here, under the heading "Styles".--Loverdrive (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this review meant that the album is emo, under the heading "Genre" or "Style" was written emo (for example, here, the review clearly says that the album is emo because it is written under the correct heading). The A Beautiful Lie review says "this is as earnest as an emo record gets", but don't clearly said A Beautiful Lie is an emo album.--Loverdrive (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability
First of all thank you for taking the time to explain your edit (many people would have ended up in a meaningless revert-revert competition) I have read WP:MUSIC carefully, but according to "Criteria for composers_and lyricists" section: Josh Farro for instance has composed and written/co-written several notable Paramore singles (and this is well established and well-sourced). therefor he meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. also it says "5- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." and Farro for instance has been covered frequently in publications for alternative press and even emo sub-culture.T.tyrael (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right ... Redirect it is then ... Thank you. T.tyrael (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FlyLal
Re this edit. Could you explain the policy in simple English to me? I can understand the reason for uppercase first letter, but not why FlyLAL was changed to FlyLal. Why then not to Flylal? I don't have strong feelings either way, I am just confused & trying to understand. Also, since you changed the capitalization by "find & replace", some references got changed -- which I don't think they should. Renata (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you mentioned acronyms... It's previous name was Lithuanian Airlines (or in Lithuanian: Lietuvos Avialinijos). So it might very well be an acronym. Would that mean that FlyLAL is more appropriate? Renata (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tik Tok
Ok, that is fine now that it is clear to me why it had been moved. However, what about the song LoveGame by Lady Gaga. That is a quality article that uses capitalisation for its name. Why hasn't anyone picked up on that? If changes are made to TiK ToK, then why not for all other music articles? It would be simply unfair if we move some and leave others. • вяαdcяo chat  21:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rare Green Day singles
Hi,I noticed you've edited a lot of sections about Green Day's singles. I assure you that the changes I've made have been confirmed by multiple sources. If you're still wondering, take a trip to greendaydiscography.com. Disco dude rock (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rare Green Day singles
Alright, I can understand why you'd want to take the obscure singles out of the chronology section, but I see you've also taken the liberty of taking them out of the singles section on the respective albums page. Don't. A single is a single. "Macy's Day Parade" is a very rare single that was only released in Australia, however, its status as a single was confirmed by International Superhits (however, not all singles were put on International Superhits! for unknown reasons)! "86" was another obscure single, however it had more pressings than "Macy's Day Parade," yet you took it off the Insomniac singles section. And how can you differenciate the singles from the promos? There's no evidence, and in my book, they're the same. Secondly, relying on Wikipedia for factual information is a joke, I'm simply trying to get some facts straight.Disco dude rock (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's use common sense here; would the maker of Green Day Discography delibrately spread lies? No. These also appear on eBay from time to time. In addition, they can be traced back to Reprise's catalog with their codes. Do you really want to lie about something just because it's not a "reliable source?" While you're at it, why don't you provide me with a reliable source that states "Basket Case" was released as a physical single. Your logic makes no sense. Disco dude rock (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you've failed to prove anything. The singles and promos are the same thing! All pressings of Walking Contradiction only have one track and no cover as well. There's not excuse, change it back. Disco dude rock (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

capitalization for of Montreal
I feel that MOSTM does not apply as this is a proper name, not a trademark. The appropriate guideline in this case, MOS:PN, states "Exceptions are made when the given individual does not want their name to be capitalized, and the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English." riffic (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw a venn diagram for you. In one circle you have band names, in the other you have trademarks. These two circles can possibly intersect. Not all band names are trademarks. riffic (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland rugby flag
Please stop undoing my edits on Heineken Cup 2009-2010 - if you persist you may be blocked, thanks.--137.191.240.200 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, how clever... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello, Nouse4aname. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

2009-10 Heineken Cup
I was in the process of leaving a resolved on the ANI discussion when you left the message. I'll also change the article to semi-protect. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a wider issue at play here, copyrigting is a smokescreen and you know it. Glad there is a wider discussion, beyond the polar views of both sides. You fail to remember that removal of all flags was discussed as well. In the utopian Wiki world agression is unjust and does not help anyone or any issue. The isness of things is worth studying; but it is their whyness that makes life worth living.--Dunshocking (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologise again Nouse, still waiting for my apology, maybe you should check out this page Anger management. Anyone can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not easy.--Dunshocking (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * just seen your edit comments on the the challenge cup 09/10 history page. I don't see a problem with showing the possible senarios on the next match day, I've seen "next matchday senarios been used on all soccer competitions pages (World Cup, Euro Championships, Champions league) and on the NFL page. If it is used on these, I dont see why you think it shouldn't be allowed on fot rugby Competitions. Gero13 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This Is War
Maybe you can't read. The Spin rating is based on the rate of the users that are log in the site (from the website "Login or Register to rate this item."). The Guardian rating is unreliable because you can sign in the site and edit the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I won't say lies and then use it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can rating these reviews, so they violate the wikipedia criteria.
 * Oh god, can you read? "Login or Register to rate this item." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One of these IPs added a foreign language link to the page, so I can only assume it/him/they don't understand English properly. How hard is it to understand "You're wrong, no, you're wrong"? They just aren't getting the picture, plain ignorance. I was thinking protect the page under the 3RR rule, but that's not going to solve anything if they're so unwilling to be reasoned with. Perhaps a block will have to be pursued. kiac. (talk-contrib) 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it continues over the next day or so, I think we'll have to. Hopefully we get a week or two protection and then once the hype has gone down, no one will give a hoot anymore. I'm bewildered as to how these IPs have banded together and copied the same excuses used previously to try and delete the negative reviews. What a joke. kiac.  (talk-contrib)
 * No worries. I should be around more than usual over the next 3 or so days, so I'll keep my eyes peeled. Either it was the same person or that person is foruming it to his buddies... who knows? kiac.  (talk-contrib) 12:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if this guy set an alarm for when his block ended. Straight back into the ignorant edits. Woohoo. kiac.  (talk-contrib) 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Tour
Edit warring? I am not the one reflexively reverting. If this is an edit war it's coming from your side. I'm in the middle of revising Hurricane (Grace Jones album), making constructive edits. You reverted the album page to the include the tour article after I requested that we discuss this on Talk:The Hurricane Tour. I agree the The Hurricane Tour needs to be built up and I have given you a head start with those sources I found. Meanwhile, please do not shoe-horn that setlist into the album article again. It is too long and does not fit. My request to discuss the issue on Talk:The Hurricane Tour still stands. Am86 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I will expand the tour article later. If I was rude I apologize. But can you do me a favor and not re-add the setlist to the album article? Am86 (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Green Day Singles
All of them have been released as physical singles. There is not difference between a promo and a single. The fact that you're taking this like a pussy doesn't exactly help. I don't care if it makes your job harder, these things have been cited, and even popped up on auction sites a few times. Now I ask you, where's your proof that the other singles exist? Stop trying to cause an edit war. Regards, Disco dude rock (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Do you live by Wikipedia rules? Get some common sense and get bent. Regards, Disco dude rock (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're a robot. This is common sense that something like this exists. Can you find a reliable source that any other singles exist? So stop feeding me the same crap! Regards, Disco dude rock (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Walking Contradiction
I OWN the "Walking Contradiction" CD and there is no Live Version on it.Plus, Green Day Discography.com has proof as well, they say that there is three different CDs, which they all have the same one track, "Walking Contradiction (Radio Edit)". — StuckWithMeFan113 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Last Comment
I'm going to try to be straight to the point with this one. My last comment was indeed relevant to the topic. I own a physical copy of the Walking Contradiction single. I can prove that it has only one track. Anyways, I was trying to add fill in the people of Wikipedia on some little known Green Day facts. The sources may be limited, but there's other way to prove the existance of the more well-known singles as well. Regard, Disco dude rock (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Emo artists
Read here and discuss.--Loverdrive (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo Tengo Un Question
You're an expert in the music thing. Why do the Beatles have a page for every single song ever created by themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.36.8 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * all their songs are notable.riffic (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Lindberg
Replied to you on Talk:Jim Lindberg about keeping the Jim Lindberg article not redirected. 69.12.166.40 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Garage
Hi, I am working though the copy-edit backlog and was about to do The Garage article. I noticed that you just put all the letters in lower-case. I have no connection to the place at all and was going to do exactly what you did, but on looking at a few references found that the place refers to itself as THE GARAGE and so do some other sources although others do not. I am quite new to Wikipedia and was wondering what the consensus was on place names or what would be best for this article. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:MOSTM makes it pretty clear that it should be The Garage. AIRcorn (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ting Tings
There is no need to recreate the individual member articles because info was deleted from the main page. The result of the merge discussion still stands. If you disagree with removal of information from the band article then add it back there, but do not recreate member articles as they still fail WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * start an AfD discussion then riffic (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would it matter if they fail WP:MUSIC (not that I'm suggesting they do or don't, I've never looked into it. They both pass WP:GNG by miles.  The merge last year was never done that well, and much of the material has since been removed. Nfitz (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I see the point of both discussing it on the talk page and removing the content. I don't think you should be removing content unless you want to remerge it properly yourself. Nfitz (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

TIW
Hi. I see your last edit at This Is War. Now, there are two paragraphs called "Reception", is it corrected?--PianoTalk (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but why did you remove those reviews?--PianoTalk (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)PianoTalk
 * But an Entertainment Weekly review isn't more reliable than a Spin review?--PianoTalk (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

semi-protection
Your talk page wound up semi-protected to keep ItHysteria at bay. You can go to WP:RFPP to undo if it bothers you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs
Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Tik Tok
As far as I know, there is nowhere on Wikipedia that states making note of an official stylization is undue weight. The song is officially titled "TiK ToK" (per iTunes listing, chart listings on Billboard, etc.) and there is no "preference" such as you said. – Chase  ( talk ) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually is official. If you go to Billboard.com, the song is charting as "TiK ToK". If you look up the song on iTunes, the song is listed as "TiK ToK". Surely, they wouldn't be listed in this unusual way if it wasn't official? And regardless, it's not undue weight by any means. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. The title is obviously not standard English as it uses neither proper spelling nor capitalization. "TiK ToK" is the song's legal title, such as "...Baby One More Time" is the legal title of the Britney Spears song and not "Hit Me Baby One More Time". The song's title is not "Tik Tok" and we should thus make not that it is not official capitalization/styling. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of "other outlets". The song is officially titled "TiK ToK". – Chase  ( talk ) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Swingin Utters albums
I have nominated swingin utters albums for renaming to swingin' utters albums. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bay Pointe
Hi, following our conversation on this article's talk page, I've put it up for AfD - thought you might like to know.Pondle (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne - Singles' Template Track List Removal
I have reverted the removal of the track listings from the singles articles of Avril Lavigne and have explained my reasoning on the main article's discussion page. Please discuss your reasons for wishing to make such a change at that page. Thanks! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk  ] ~ 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Killers
I've reverted your redirects Dave Keuning‎, Mark Stoermer and Ronnie Vannucci Jr.‎. They are all covered by multiple reliable sources and therefore meet the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO#1 as well as the general notability guideline. --JD554 (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent nominations for deletion
Hi N4a. Earlier today you sent Hill, Back, Dallaglio to AfD and nominated 2010–11 Guinness Premiership for speedy deletion without notifying the author. This is of course not required, but it is considered the "proper thing to do". I can see from his talk page that there has been some disagreement, especially concerning the interpretation of WP:NPOV. So much more reason for sticking with normal procedure. Best, Favonian (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

bad fiath
Please do not nominate valid articles for deletion in bad faith. Sir Francis Drake (not really!) (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nouse4aname/NHOI
Do these guys still perform? I remember seeing them in a rock club 7 years ago. Got '11 days' autographed and everything. Scarian Call me Pat!  10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Finish Line (Train song)

 * I know that the song isn't particularly notable, but you can see on my talk page that that user is going to quit editing Wikipedia with the article deleted. You're supposed to do what is in the encyclopedias best interest, and I think it is better for the article to exist and for Wiki to have contribution from that editor, than for it not to exist and him leave. See WP:IGNORE Nowyouseeme &#124; wanna chat?  21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Notable Policy
I'd like to know why you think the notable policy is "wikipedia's best interest". What would be so bad if people could add anything that was true and not subjective to wikipedia? I know we already have Wikias for that, but there are just so many Wikias and most of them don't compare to the massive scope that is Wikipedia. I know the creators of Wikipedia made it a rule, but I would like to know why they made it a rule. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If somebody takes the time out of their day to make something that has quality to it, like I do, I just don't think it should be deleted. It isn't like I added a page for every Train song I like or something. Heck, if it wasn't for me the Train (band) part of this wiki wouldn't be half of what it is today. And I did it because they are one of my favorite bands and I thought it would be better if there was more information for people to view and research with. Other than wiki and the official website (which doesn't have a lot of information by the way), the only website I know with information about Train is FriendsOfTrain, and they aren't even updating their website anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bizkit
Listen, bro. I'm sorry if you got offended by that summary. I'm not that way at all and sometimes within my speech I'll intend something else when I say it, and in this case, not being able to hear my voice doesn't help the conclusion of the intentions either. You weren't blamed for anything. Anyway I replied to your message on my talk page. • GunMetal Angel  07:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American jazz musical groups
Category:American jazz musical groups, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Airplaneman  ✈  20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)