User talk:Sirgreene

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

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Article
Hello. I received a message that my article will be deleted. I understand the reason, but, this is not a simple garage band. --&#91;&#91;User:Sirgreene&#124;Sirgreene&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Sirgreene&#124;talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall using the term "garage band". I will suggest, though, that the group in question doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC, with which you may wish to familiarize yourself.  If you believe that the group does meet those criteria, you're welcome to begin the process at WP:Deletion review.  Since you mistakenly left your message on my user page, I'll see if I can help you receive this message by copying both your and my note to your talk page.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I happened to agree with Accounting4Taste, which is why I deleted it. The tone seemed to fit the typical "wannabe" bands which arrive by the hundreds every day. The last paragraph successfully established notability IMO, so I've restored it. You may wish to do some immediate cleanup to the article so that another admin doesn't clobber it again; it's really shaky as it stands. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The location of the message was no problem, and I'm glad you received it. I think User:PMDrive1061 and I are currently discussing this issue -- if s/he's right and I'm wrong, I'll be happy to restore the article and help you improve it.  Apparently it falls into a gray area and I may be learning that I made a mistake.  If you have any further questions, I'm at your service.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this and I agree, this meets #9 of the list of qualifications under WP:MUSIC, so I have removed my deletion tag and stand ready to help you improve the article. As User:PMDrive1061 noted, it's "shaky as it stands", so I'll see what I can do to help.  Sorry if this all seems a bit weird -- we work hard and quickly to keep articles out that don't meet our standards, but I'm always happy when we get something useful.  My apologies for any discomfiture and let me know if there's something I can do to help.  (I'm going to change some of the language to make it more neutral, for starters.)  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. For the record, I'm a "he." :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too, for the record. I'd suggest you take out the sections "History" and "Influences" unless you can back them up with reliable sources.  It may seem strange, but what the band says about itself is considered a primary source and cannot be used to support the article -- it's what experts like music critics say that is the only way of getting those kind of statements in.  The bit about releasing the EP is a fact, so of course it can stay.  So if someone has written an article in a newspaper about the contest, or reviewed the band in a magazine, that would be the best material to use in the article, appropriately cited so that other people can find the same article if they look for it.  Right now, those two sections are pretty much at the mercy of anyone who cares to remove them.  You might find WP:Your first article to be useful in sorting out what works and what doesn't -- also, WP:Why was my article deleted? will give you some idea of why the article was on the borderline.  I'm going offline now, but I'll help you further if you have any questions -- just leave me a note and I'll get back to you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I'll help you as best I can. I think the most important thing for you to do would be to collect everything that has ever been written about the band by people who could be seen as "independent experts". That is, not people who are members of the band or related to them, not postings in blogs or forums, not MySpace comments -- only people who are seen as having expertise in assessing bands and who have published comments in "reliable sources" like newspapers, magazines, etc. People like professional music critics or recording company executives. Those are the sources that are needed to create a picture of the band in its article. I suspect that one good source of these comments would be the people who judged the contest; who are they, why were they chosen to be judges, where did they say things, what exactly did they say and how can people confirm that they said those things? I hope this helps. It is sometimes hard for people to understand that Wikipedia doesn't want to know what people say about themselves, only what others say about them; it's the difference between "primary sources" (which we don't use) and "secondary sources" (which we do). If you have any further questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanna upload an image for the article Skye Harbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgreene (talk • contribs)


 * Seems like you figured it out yourself. Please do not hesitate to replace the template if you have further questions. If you need help adding footnotes and references correctly, you should read WP:CITE. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages like this one with ~ . Regards  So Why  23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you figured it out. If you have questions about uploading images, this page is a good place to start -- it answers a lot of common questions about copyright issues.  If there's something else I can do, leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the page and divided the bottom part into categories that are more usually used on Wikipedia -- there's a difference (here) between references and external links, so I divided them up. Hope you find this appropriate.  Essentially, things the band says about itself go under external links, and things that other people say about the band are references.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits at NX Zero


Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. CIreland (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do NOT use talk pages to engege in personal attacks against other editors, and certainly not to disparage the subject of an article with unverified allegations of wrongdoing. I have to warn you that you are heading swiftly towards being blocked from this website.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Scott MacDonald. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Willking1979 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Willking1979. Willking1979 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:KestieMorassi.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:KestieMorassi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:KestieMorassi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KestieMorassi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:JohnJarrat.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:JohnJarrat.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked for 24 hours for making personal attacks. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires, but please comment on the content, not the contributor. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, with Stifle's OK, I've extended this block to indefinite, due to your particularly rough personal attacks, violations of editing on articles of living people, and vandalism-type edits. If you'd like to request an unblock, please use the unblock template. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)