User talk:Nouse4aname/Archive 5

The Strokes - Under Cover of Darkness
I have reverted your redirect for the article on The Strokes song, Under Cover of Darkness. After reading through some previous comments on your talk page you seemingly have a knack for deleting important articles. In reference to your WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, The Strokes are a very notable band, and in a few days Under the Cover of Darkness will become a very notable song. This article will no doubt grow in detail and importance, so please refrain from these edits in the future. Cheers  ♦ BOHEMIAN ARCADE ♦    •  Message me • My contributions  22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm Wrong Am I?
check this blink-182 part 1 blink-182 part 2 Part 3 part 4 change them back the way I changed it!

Home Nations Championship
Great work with the new infoboxes. A lot cleaner, ...but, I have reference books that state 1888 and 1889 were not considered incomplete. England were not invited and Scotland, Wales and Ireland undertook the tournament as a full competition. The same thing happened for Wales during the Gould Affair. These teams were not part of the IRFB and therefore the competitions legally completed. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heineken Cup finals
Why did you merge those articles? Sure, they're not very big at the moment, but they could have easily been expanded! – PeeJay 11:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the 2009 final? There was plenty of extra information in that one! – PeeJay 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the 2010 final. That one was looking pretty good. – PeeJay 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the 2001 final wasn't too shabby either. – PeeJay 16:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Heineken Cup finals are notable events and that articles about them should be expanded, not merged simply because we don't feel like expanding them. – PeeJay 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously my actual tone has been lost across the 'net, but you are obviously only perceiving aggression on my part when there is, in fact, none. And regardless of my tone, your conduct here is a perfect example of the "deletionist" attitude that a lot of other users also seem to have on Wikipedia. Make it better, don't delete it. – PeeJay 10:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you still have an aversion to articles about Heineken Cup finals, and I'm afraid I still don't understand your reasons. The information is all out there, so shouldn't we be encouraging people to create the articles? – PeeJay 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"M+M's"
You can't just hastily remove the contents of this article, replacing it with a redirection link. If you feel it doesn't fulfil the aims that WP:MUSIC state should be achieved, you should put it up on the articles for deletion list. You're sly, albeit your trail is distinct. TDW ✉ 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am moving it into the article incubator. Any problems? TDW  ✉ 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:Article Incubator. TDW  ✉ 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise you were this harsh. Putting my page on your watchlist, out of every other article in the incubator; you want it deleted after a mere two or three weeks in there? Are you even a moderator, or just posing? Oh, the profanity compels me. I wish I could block you. TDW  ✉ 16:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You just seem relentless and bitter, you really do. I just thought you have responsibility aswell; again, seemingly sitting on the fence - making no attempt to improve any article's state you are intrigued in - just makes me think you are being a delibrate hastle. And you remark on my 'deceptive' edit, well I'm not sure exactly what the administrator'll think, but not he won't know of the period of time that this article has been on your watchlist. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just being watchful and helpful, believe it or not. Yeah, I'm just an adolescent know-nothing-at-all, but I do have a keen eye. Back to the point, due to this debacle, I must move this page back into my subpage category. Don't worry for vilipendency, I concur with you, just not for you. (Oh yes, it was my page - created and articulated n' all.) TDW  ✉ 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh deary me, did you see this on the template above the article? "If you have not previously edited this article disagree with this assessment, or are willing to start making improvement, please update this template's "status" parameter to read "status=start"." I had a right to change it, but hey, I will move it to "User:Trap The Drum Wonder/M+M's". I'm sorry, I'm an impatient WikiGnome and so I won't wait for the article's dubious assessment to commence. I hope that isn't illegal or anything. Apologies for the double post. TDW  ✉ 20:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should've said you had been watching it for that long. You should also resume the article's original redirect to Cheshire Cat. That is all. TDW  ✉</FONT> 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to Bullet in a Bible
Please quit reverting my edits on Bullet in a Bible, it's silly to keep re-adding the omitted songs to the track listing, it's the track listing to the album, not the concert setlist, so please stop. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are sources since there are audience recordings of the omitted songs on YouTube, ect. And there are concert reviews that mention those songs being played, so i re-added them and please do not remove it again. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why aren't YouTube videos good enough? it's proof that what i'm saying is correct. And look, all i'm doing is trying to add stuff to wikipedia and improve articles, i'm not trying to make anyone mad or start edit wars or anything! i'm just trying to be a good editor, and i don't want every topic i start to end up in an argument, i don't feel like arguing with anybody anymore, i have enough stress. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, i'm just gonna remove the whole thing, i'm done arguing with everybody, and yes, i do listen to what people tell me, don't try to say you know anything about me because you don't, all i really want is to be a good editor, i tried to add sources to see if you would believe me, but it's obvious that nothing i do is right, i try and i try so hard, as hard as i can to be as good of an editor as i can be, i try so hard to get people to like me but it's obvious that nobody likes me on here. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't ignore it, i tried to find a reliable source, and i've seen other concert reviews with the original setlist, but i'm gonna have to find it first, but i'm not gonna worry about adding it back, that's how i feel, and it's obvious that my efforts aren't good enough, people actually say that my edits just make the article worse, which all that does is make me feel like i shouldn't even bother trying to do good edits, BTW, i found a source, how about this one? and thanks for the source you gave me :). http://www.songkick.com/concerts/477627-green-day-at-national-bowl. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, can i re-add it with the source you gave me? --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this source any good? http://www.efestivals.co.uk/festivals/others2005/greendaymk/review-saturday.shtml --Chickenguy13 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, can i re-add it now with these sources? i'm not trying to annoy you or anything, i just want to make sure that i can. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about all of this :). --Chickenguy13 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

rugby boxes
I reckon the non-collapsible rugby boxes are suitable for finals or with competitions where there isn't 69 games in a season. With the collapsible ones, it is easier to find what you are looking for without having look in between everything else around it. I'm not trying to "negate their entire use and function", I'm just trying to make it easier to read and navigate. JaFa 01 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * can u please direct me to the discussion regarding the rugby boxes concerning super rugby.JaFa 01 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you, i shall start one. now regarding overlinking, what do suggest should be the correct use of them in the super 12 seasons?JaFa 01 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. I'll help as much as i can for the other seasons as well. thanks for your cooperation and clarity. JaFa 01 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks JaFa 01 (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gotten rid of the white lines, making a bit cleaner. JaFa 01 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, just have to wait and see i guessJaFa 01 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can already, just add "|time=" into the box, but, do you think certain parameters should be excluded if they can't be consistent. JaFa 01 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if all the times for all the games can be added? JaFa 01 (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, are the times local? and where did you find these times for such a long time ago? JaFa 01 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no, i agree with the points table. JaFa 01 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

reports
I've found pages on the south african rugby website with reports on games from 1996 all the way to 2010 with info including the stadium, scores and referees. Here is 1996 (1996 season to get started with. i think we should only use the information on these pages for consistency throughout the article. you agree? JaFa 01 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

W-B-X
There was no consensus for the move, and I am currently discussing it with the admin on the talk page.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apprentice winners
I accept the title may not be sufficiently neutral and I have amended this. With one exception, which I have now referenced, all the other information is taken from elsewhere in the article and the separate candidate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I have now referenced the information about the departure of all winners.Tomintoul (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Trevor MacGregor
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted the hard RD you instated to Trevor MacGregor's article to his band Treble Charger's article. I left my justification on his article's talk page (simply stated though, as he's been in two notable groups he qualifies for individual inclusion per WP:MUS.) Regarding WP:GNG, I think that the article itself fails to meet these standards, but I will clean it up sometime very soon, probably tonight, and hopefully remedy this problem. Cheers, Colinclarksmith (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. I think that the article could satisfy WP:GNG after some TLC, which I'm going to get to work on.  And as for WP:MUS, yes, he was indeed a member of two notable bands, although the wording in his own article doesn't really make that clear.  Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorne Heights songs
I completely understand why those needed to be removed. I was hoping enough information could be found to prove their relivence and notability, but apparantly that information doesn't exsist. Most of those songs simply were not notable.

I do, however, argue that the pages "Where Can I Stab Myself in the Ears?" and "Rescue Me (Hawthorne Heights song)" do meet WIKI notability requirements. Especially the first song I mentioned. Use in a mainstream film AND an existing cover version by a notable group completely meets WIKI's standards. I acknowledge that the references need to be better, though, and I will certainly work on that before restoring the article.

As for "Rescue Me," the performance on The Tonight Show seems to classify as "notable/significant coverage by popular media," although I'm not as determined to re-establish that page because that may simply not be enough.--  ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ... (Talk)   16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of squad boxes from significant finals on St Helens RLFC
Hi. First of all, I understand that the page is very large at present, and why someone would want to remove a template that takes up so much room. However, as was the case with FC Barcelona, in showing the squad that won a major trophy, I think that the templates are useful for such examples with St Helens as, obviously the 1897 Challenge Cup Final, and, in my view at least, their most recent success in the World Club Challenge, and possibly Super League, failing that the 1961 Challenge Cup Final. The main reason for inclusion of these templates was to make up for the lack of images with regards the clubs history. I'd like your views on whether the templates, or a smaller version, if one existed, should be included in the page to show such examples as stated above, or whether the idea should be scrapped altogether.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think adding the templates back into the history article, as opposed to the section on St Helens RLFC may be a better move.


 * Thanks,


 * Ymron (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Emo
Don't remove the image from Emo again, please see punk subculture for an example of an article where an example image of punks is put. If you have any question, please post it in my talk page. Spatulli (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossfade
You removed the page for Colors, which charted and was off of their platinum selling album. You removed the page for Ed Sloan which made no sense. You seem to have some sort of desire to sabotage. You're the only one in years that has considered deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonham93 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those colourful templates
Hi there, I saw that you have changed basically all the AFL club navboxes back to the default colours. I agree that having colours all through was quite distracting, but I don't think all colour needs to be removed wholesale. As not many Australian editors are on wikipedia at the moment (it's 4am) I doubt your changes will be really noticed for a while. Anyway, I think that some zealous editors will revert you, so I was wondering if compromise could be reached and whether something like this would be considered ok by you? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, I had just written a long-winded explanation about exactly that when I noticed you had addded to your original post on my talk :) I understand your concerns and thanks for the link to the relevant MoS section as I hadn't seen that before. I will bring this up at WT:AFL (not expecting any quick replies) and see if my compromise can be implemented. Thanks for the explanation though, Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The egg
Hi, I see you've moved The egg to a new title. I have put a query about capitalisation on the talk page as the theatre always uses lower case.&mdash; Rod talk 12:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"cleanup"
You're right, I'm lazy with my edit summaries most of the time. Therefore, I will explain my reverts here:


 * I re-added the larger flags because they show more clearly the details in each flag. As has been stated many times before, the default flagicon size makes it difficult to discern the differences between - for example - the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag. Therefore, the larger flags are actually quite useful.
 * I restored the capitalisation of the country names because they are not part of any particular passage of prose. They are standalone words that are there to identify the country that has its line-up listed below. Typical literary rules should not necessarily apply in this circumstance.
 * For the round names, I defaulted to the names given to each round by the IRB on the Rugby World Cup website. While I would normally write "quarter-finals" and "semi-finals", the IRB refers to those rounds as the "Quarter Finals" and "Semi Finals". Because of that, I think we should use those names in the article. I am open to changing these to "quarter-finals" and "semi-finals", but you should have at least mentioned it before making your unilateral changes. – PeeJay 15:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are we to say that the IRB's names for their competition's rounds are wrong? It's their competition, so they can name it how they like. And we should not second-guess them. – PeeJay 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

6N 2012
Hey - yeah, I was surprised too that the fixtures had been released for the next two years, as of course they usually come out in the April after the tournament finishes. I see you removed the "at a glance" fixture list, as did someone for the 2011 page - good call. I thought it was rubbish, but left it in there for consistency. Geat (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Featherstone RUFC
Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stade de France
If you think that Saint-Denis is merely a suburb of Paris, then you are sorely mistaken. Do your research properly before slagging other people off. And if you think I have a problem with article ownership, then I think you need to take a look in the mirror as well. – PeeJay 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're well aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, so just because another Wikipedia article says one thing doesn't make it right. I've told you before that all the independent reliable sources refer to the Stade de France's location as Saint-Denis, especially the FIFA archive of the 1998 World Cup and the IRB's archive of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. – PeeJay 11:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Flag
I am following BRD. Where are WP:MUSIC does it say that coverage of the artist has to be independent of the band that they are in. I looked and I can't find anything that would go with turning a sourced BLP into a redirect --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mae EP style changes
Is there a particular guideline that recommends against using stylized names like (m)orning in favor of just Morning? If that's the established consensus or policy, I can live with it, but I do rather like the stylized version, especially considering the parallelism between the 3 EPs and the band's name. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars
You may wish to comment in this discussion. I'm a bit suspicious of Trandingbrights' statement that "They need removed from the list and that sources need to disappear", as that is the exact same statement made by Smk42 at the start of last year's discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Phrase That Pays for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Phrase That Pays is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Phrase That Pays until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sponsored vs non-sponsored names...:
There was a discussion on WP:RU. General consensus was for non-sponsored names. --Bob (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion concerned the main articles, not individual seasons. For specific seasons, the sponsored name is invariably the WP:COMMONNAME and should be used. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It also involved individual season article titles. Please re-read the discussion. --Bob (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart fron one short passing comment regarding one season of the premiership, I see no such discussion having taken place. There is no way that you can possibly derive consensus for the naming of Magners League and English Premiership main articles to apply to all separate season articles. I suggest you re-read the discussion, or provide a direct link to where it is specifically stated that articles for individuual seasons should be under the non-sponsored name. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to read, I am unable to help you. --Bob (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)