User talk:Undead warrior/Archive 2

AfD
If you want something deleted, or believe it should be delted, make a list of it here. I will nominate it if it needs to be.Undeath (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates
I make templates. If you want one made, tell me. Undeath (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mandrake
I have incorporated the previous sources back into this article whilst avoiding cutting and pasting blocks of text. One of these sources is the band's label, so it has to be put into context - not an independent source. This was originally just a cut and paste paragraph with a ref at the end of it without any indication that it was someone else's opinion. The review, which was previously quoted has been summarized without quoting a whole paragraph of text, which I believe could be a violation of copyright. I hope this is ok. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yersinia (band)
I have nominated Yersinia (band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Yersinia (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Michig (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

rfa
just confirm that you definitely want the nomination to go ahead now, and I'll do it Jimfbleak (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPWatcher application
Your NPWatcher application has been approved. Good luck with the extra tool. Rudget . 12:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Jimfbleak would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Jimfbleak to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

 Jimfbleak would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Jimfbleak to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

You should follow this link. Best of luck =D. Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to transclude your RFA to WP:RFA. Malinaccier (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/User:Undead warrior 2 Add to WP:RFA when you've accepted Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some general suggestions on what could help you at another RfA
Dear Undead Warrior, per your request on my talk page, here are some suggestions on how to respond proactively to the oppose criticisms you received in your two failed RfAs: If I think of any more, I'll let you know, but the above is some of what I have found to work. Again, though, I do encourage you to also consider that Adopt a User program where you could request mentorship from an admin with specific experience related to blocking policies and the various administrator notice boards (again, I have been around for a while, but I am not an admin). I hope that the above helps and remembers it's only my "two cents", so decide for yourself what is worthwhile from it and listen to what others have to say. I think you have taken the right steps already and wish you all the best in the future! By the way, you have a cool username! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to get an article or two (if not as many as you can) up to Good Article or Featured Article status and indicate that on your userpage. If editors see that you have not only created articles, but that you created or worked on Good Articles and/or Featured Articles, they'll be likely more apt to believe that you know what goes into making articles on Wikipedia and it will also make criticisms of being overly deletionist more difficult.
 * Keep seeking feedback from other editors as you did prior to your last RfA and as you seem to be doing now afterwards. You may want to check out Adopt-a-User for editors who are even more established and respected than I am who could be great mentors.  Maybe even make a list of your favorite Wikipedians or something like I did: see here
 * Spread wiki-love. See Welcoming committee and Kindness Campaign.  A great way to gain support on Wikipedia is to give people reason to like you.
 * Be balanced in AfDs, i.e. don't only nominate articles for deletion. While I consider myself an inclusionist, I nevertheless make sure that I am fair and argue to also delete articles on occasion as I did here: Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling.  If you want to show the community that you'll be fair at AfD closures, editors like to see a neutrality or balanced among admins with regards to keeps and deletes.  Relatedly, approach AfDs and similar discussions with an open-mind.  If the article is improved during the discussion, be willing to concede that maybe the articles does have some merit and potential.  While not an AfD, in Seraphim Whipp's RfA, I initially opposed, but then switched to neutral after discussion.  It is important that we don't focus on "winning the argument", but that we are willing to compromise.  This advice can also be applied to the concept of multiple or renominations of articles for deletion.  A lot of editors really do not like having repeats of the same AfD every other months.  Finally, in regards to AfDs, please do avoid "cruft" and "per nom" arguments, as you're apt to have someone toss that arguments to avoid essay your way.
 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer project and so if it ever gets too frustrating, take a break. It's best to cool off for a few hours before responding to something on the fly.  Editors will like to civility and calmness and I think that you would ask me who was the first to oppose your recent RfA for advice is a really respectable good faith gesture and it reveals something positive about your character.
 * Be sure to have edit summaries.
 * Because I was one of the opposers in your RfA, look at these three examples of recent RfAs in which I initially opposed but changed my stance as the RfA progressed: Requests for adminship/Seraphim Whipp, Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5, and Requests for adminship/Redfarmer. Careful consider which editors made me dig in my heels and which editors persuaded me to change my stance.  Those who approached me in a confrontational manner failed to persuade me and if anything made me want to oppose even more firmly.  By contrast when the nominees answered my questions in a satisfactory manner or engaged me politely, I changed my mind.  Be sure the keep that in mind if you run again and see "opposes".  Also, keep it in mind in AfDs.  Even if you are more deletionist in nature (by the way people like neutral admins so it may be best not having a userbox that places you on one end of the spectrum; I know I have an inclusionist userbox, but then again, I'm not really interested in being an admin at this time), an important trait of an admin is to be neutral and close AfDs based on the consensus or lack of consensus at the discussion (not vote; way too many editors approach AfDs as votes, but a discussion is a dialogue during which the article may improve; thus even if there's five deletes initially by editors who never return to the AfD, but the last two are keeps based on a dramatic improvement to the article, the later posts that take the changes into account are given more weight) rather than how the admin personally wants it closed.  If there's anything positive about AfDs, it is that there are compromise ways of closing.  You can close as a no consensus or you can redirect the article without deleting thereby at least keeping the contribution history public.

Not tagging test cricketers as not notable might help too. Nick mallory (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE
Actually, I have every right to edit articles under construction (says so right on the template), besides, this was a minor edit (hope you didn't lose any info!) just click "back" and you should have your information, (was that link supposed to go to "Spanish Inquisition"? The Dominator (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry! My bad, thought it had the template there, my apologies! The Dominator (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. It's just wikipedia. I'll redo it sometime when I feel like it. XD Undeath (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict, ironically) I'm really sorry, but when you get the "Edit conflict" screen clicking "back" right away should bring you back to what you were writing, then just copy it, press "forward" and replace the page with your content. The Dominator (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what I do as an extra precaution before saving is copying my text and if I get an edit conflict I just copy-paste it back in. The Dominator (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Always take precautions against vandals, new editors or just dumbasses like me... The Dominator (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't know me! : ) Happy editing! The Dominator (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Logo vote
I apologize for any rudeness on my part in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, as I know I may have appeared brusque in my comments. The simple fact is that we disagree completely on the use of logos in the infobox. As you can see from the previous discussion on the same matter, I have explained my position, backed up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, many times over on that same talk page. With regard to the use of logos in the infobox, most other editors (save Kameejl) plus an admin have all voiced similar opinions that it is not appropriate to use logos in the infoboxes of articles about musical acts, especially in the manner which you are suggesting (substituting a logo into the image field simply because a free or fair-use photo cannot be easily found). That suggestion is clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of NFC and LOGO, and would be a clear abuse of fair use allowances. I do not believe that I was uncivil in my comments, though I certainly may have been curt. If there are specific statements of mine which you found rude or uncivil, please point them out and I will be happy to explain and/or apologize for them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving images to commons
Hi - Thanks for moving to commons (I'm still experimenting at this point or would have put them there originally myself). You don't happen to have a svg editor, do you? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I gather there's an svg plugin for GIMP (I don't have it or would have tried to produce these images in svg). I don't have any idea what most folks are using.  You might ask at Graphic Lab. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you noticed this. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

REWIND
I am sorry that you felt the information on REWIND was blatant advertising. I am new to adding entries and I did my best. REWIND is a research project funded by the UK's research Council for the Arts and Humanities. Our site has a great deal of information, ephemera, interviews with the artists, and we will also be adding clips in due course. I believed this might be useful for those interested in video art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve6212353 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion or Undifined Sexuality
Please don't be power hungry and slap tags like this on new articles that have pontental. You only have the right to use this tag if the article is nonsence, which this article isn't. Please think more carefully before placing tags on pages.

Commons images
I notice you tried to move some images of An Oriant from the English Wiki to Commons, but I already did this back in February so that I could re-use them on the Welsh Wiki. Should I have deleted them from the English Wiki also? I'm not totally clear on this one but as I use the CommonsHelper to make the move I assumed that all would be automated? -- Maelor 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Joshvalov
It's not showing as protected to me, but I've removed the misleading notice Jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Just to follow up on the Yersinia page - I was interested in this because I know that notable metal band pages get deleted all the time. But I have to say that I don't think this one passes muster. They never released a full-length, nothing on Allmusic, they were on a label out of nowhere (the Deviant Records page is about a different label), and all we could dig up was one interview from a minor German online metal magazine...it's hard to make the case that the band's page should have stayed. I'm sorry that that page is no longer here, but I do hope that this new AfD isn't WP:POINTy. Chubbles (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tomq-unit
I don't mind taking action, as you know, but you'll have to help me with what policy is being broken. Although copying article pages on to user pages is odd, why is it vandalism? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the non-free image link. Apart from people who stand for election, no-one has to give any real information. We mostly edit under usernames, and what people say about themselves is unverifiable. I could sign on as another account and claim that I was a seven foot tall Californian female vegan, and no-one would be any the wiser. I agree that the pages ought to be deleted, but i need a policy. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerbil
I've killed it, not sure it will stay dead, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR
I've blocked the 3RR editor for the recommended 24 hours for a first offence. Re the odd user page, I've posted a message to advise him in the light of the archiving policy. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Hilliard
Thank you very much for congratulating me on my good fortune:-) --Pataki Márta (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I'm not clear who you are claiming is a sockpuppet, all the contributors seem to have a reasonable number of edits in their contributions. I agree that is a bit stalemated, leave it a day or two and I'll close it if no consensus. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mama Quilla
I've removed your fact tags from the article- everything in the lead is referenced elsewhere in the article. As per this guideline, citations are not needed so much in the lead. There shouldn't be any information in the lead that isn't in the rest of the article anyway, so I generally don't use citations in the lead at all. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WHIF
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of what you left on my talkpage about WHIF. It's a radio station with correct information. Where's the problem. Please don't paste & cut.Stereorock (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looked like the Wikipedia announcement was a cut & paste. I wasn't sure what you wanted to say about WHIF.  I had changed it from being a redirect to Moody Bible Network, so it was preexisting.  I haven't had a lot of time to add to WHIF.  I no longer live within WHIF's reception range so I don't know what they do for community involvment.  I guess the people of Palatka, Florida would know how important it is to their town.  Speaking personally, WHIF never held any interest to me because of their programming.  I just know that it's more than a redirect to Moody.  I don't know if any of this helps or not.Stereorock (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Patric Old
Hello You just deleated the article on Patric Old I was in the process of writing something. He has always had his name up with Hans Bellmer, and Is a well known artist, influencial. He also recently died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingfishes (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Holovision
Delete it or not... I don't have much of a dog in that fight... I think it might be a noteworthy article sometime... but not without more work that it needs Cheers: 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
I'd be inclined to give it a bit longer. Why not informally consult the admin who granted it? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must suggest the same, contact the admin that revoked it. Tiptoety  talk 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Only Four Of It
Why would you tag this as no context? I can tell clearly who the artist is, when it was made, etc. There is no criteria for albums/songs by non-notable musicians; they must be put through AfD. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You said:"I tagged it as no context as there is no article on the band, the format is incomplete on the infobox, and there are no external links. Thus, no context."WP:CSD states: "No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." The subject of the article was an EP by the band LeCri.  It's that simple.  The example shows what kind of information fails to provide context. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree. But, to the best of our ability, we should stick to the current, community-consensus agreed-upon set of rules, feeling free to suggest changes for discussion as we see fit.  To that end, you might like to start a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.  If you do, let me know and I'll weigh in.  Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for rollback/Denied/April 2008. RFRBot (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal
You're invited to the above. --Bardin (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you!   CWii ( Talk  19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also WP:AIV is not the place for 3RR reports.   CWii ( Talk  19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Jimfbleak (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So removing inaccurate and unsourced information is vandalism?
So removing inaccurate and unsourced information is vandalism? We are removing it and placing a link to a primary source. Inaccurate information should not be left so people can think it is true. Since my efforts are not appreciated why should I continue and remove the inaccurate stuff? Yuck Flu By Road (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Well done, stay cool Jimfbleak (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN thread
I've started a thread at WP:AN (here) concering your actions yesterday. Your input is welcome.--Urban Rose  11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Low German
Why was my edit to Low German reverted? No other article on a language or dialect has the entire IPA pasted in, they just have the ones for that particular language and there's no reason for the whole IPA to be there in the first place since you can just link to the relevant ones. Munci (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history, the table had been added on the 6th September 2007 and that section has not been edited since. It's not a matter of it being incorrect so much as of being added to the article inappropriately. And it was deleted - by me. Besides, vandalism has a rather different meaning to that. This was more a case of being bold. Also, you have not said anything directly about the content of that part. Munci (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That just totally contradicts what you said before. If you look in Skomorokh's talk archives, you will find that that was a simple misunderstanding. No, there is no evidence that it was not considered useful. It's probably more the case that noone could be arsed removed it. I still don't have anything regarding the content of the text itself. Which part of your knowledge of Low German or linguistics in general makes you think it's appropriate for it to be there? Munci (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained I thought that it does not describe Low German at all. It is a table of all the pulmonic consonants possible with writing sometimes in place of symbols. By saying that, you show that you do not know enough about the topic to contribute to it. Munci (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. I will do. Munci (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Black metal project
I'd love to help out with your proposed wikiproject. A page here would be good to create and I can help with that as well. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, I'll take a look at the pages you've worked on. = ∫tc 5th Eye 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be honored to help you with a black metal wikiproject. I'm even more honored that it doesn't seem you invited many others, though you may want to do so at some point if you want it to be an official wikiproject. And this will definitely be better than Slipshit. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't know how I can help you at the moment. I can definitely be a contributor of thoughts in the project, but I went to your sandbox and I don't know much about working on that code/template. I tried to add myself to the members thing but I don't think I did it right. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Really mad
To be honest I don't know what you can do, or even whether it's advisable to do anything. I don't use WR, but it doesn't appear to be formally part of en-wiki, so other than expressing your displeasure on that site I don't really know what your options are.

I get lots of abuse on my talk page, although recently it seems pretty tame. I usually tend to reply without reaction, and don't even usually remove abuse unless it's too obscene. The trouble with losing your cool is that it's easy to breach civility yourself, there's an element of feeding the trolls and it can easily be counter-productive.

If you get into situations on en-wiki that you feel you can't walk away from, get someone else to deal with it, hand-to-hand combat is likely to damage you as much as you opponents. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OpenPipeline Logo OP_logo.jpg
Undead - You were absolutely right that I checked the wrong box for the OP logo I uploaded. I have fixed the rationale. Please let me know if you think it requires any additional changes. Dekreeft27 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucifugum
The best bet there is to go to deletion review; perhaps with a draft. I can restore the contents before deletion to your userspace, if you would like? J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the versions can be found at User:Undead warrior/Lucifugum- review the history for previous versions, the current version is the last edit before the last deletion with the nowikied. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted the text there, but it's little more than an infobox Jimfbleak (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Share International
I think all original research has been removed. Andries (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce
Yeah, sure why not? I'll go over there now. Master of Metal (Have a chat!) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Black metal project
cool. I'll try to find and move what I can. = ∫tc 5th Eye 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah...exCUSE ME for correcting this obviously biased page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.203.157 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thy Infernal
Thy Infernal was a broken redirect to Winter of Apokalypse. I restored Winter of Apokalypse and moved it to User:Undead warrior/Winter of Apokalypse to preserve the edit history. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're asking the wrong admin. : - P I had nothing to do with the actual page's deletion, I just deleted a broken redirect after the fact. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on WP:RFB
Per your comment here, for future reference, you can definitely voice your opinion there. Your say means just as much as anyone else's, just like an RfA. =) I'm glad you put in your word. Happy wikying!  hmwith τ   07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB
Hello Undeath. I've noticed your comment at EVula's RfB and thought I should drop by and inform that all users are most welcome to participate in RfBs. Actually, I can't even recall any discussion on Wikipedia reserved to admins only. Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  10:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see I was beaten to the punch by hmwith above. :-/ Hús  ö  nd  10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvary Episcopal Church, Summit, New Jersey
Hello, Undead Warrior. Thank you for offering to adopt me. I have already posted my entry at Calvary_Episcopal_Church%2C_Summit%2C_New_Jersey and would appreciate your comments. I have not yet figured how to refer to the disambiguation page at the top, nor how to list the page on the disambiguation page, so any help in that regard would be wonderful.

Thanks, Katharine908 11:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Katharine908 (talk)

Calvary Episcopal Church, Summit, New Jersey
Thanks for checking out and spiffing up my page. Please tell me what you suggest I do now. The edits say that I do not refer to sources, even though I cited two New York Times articles at the end. Are the references insufficient, or did I refer to them in the wrong place? Am I supposed to ask the editor, or ask you? I appreciate your help.Katharine. 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)~

Naer Mataron
Seeing as you were the one who rated the article, I may as well ask- any thoughts about what needs improving? I feel now I've started it, I may as well finish it... J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Are you even familiar with our policy of no original research? We can't contact the band and ask them questions to expand the article, at all. Also, a picture would be nice, but not needed- there are a good few featured articles without images (and, closer to home, some of my good articles don't have them, see Devourment or Chrome Division). I may contact the band and ask them for an image; it's just generally difficult to get across the message that we don't want permission to use an image, we want them to release an image. As for the other points, I just don't have the references- I found the band on Rockdetector and AMG and assumed there would be plenty of decent references, but I struggled to find any, and I can't find any interviews at all. I'm going to go and look for a few more references now, as I think slipping a few more reliable sources in (and perhaps a copyedit) would mean the article was ready for GAC. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank God! I thought you were a little experienced to be saying things like that... Anyway, LuciferMorgan mentioned that he doesn't like the fact the article relies so much on Rockdetector, which (despite being a reliable source by the letter of our guidelines) is riddled with errors. There's at least one in the description of this band... I'll try and filter those references out and reallocate them elsewhere next time I come to work on the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributions
I can't see anything obviously controversial in your last few pages of contributions, and it's positive that you are making more edits outside the music area, which seemed rather narrowly focused and with a risk of COI. Working NP patrol and similar gives a wider breadth to your edits.

I noticed a previous editor on your talk page suggesting that you created more, perhaps taking an article to GA/FA. I wouldn't see that as necessarily an admin role, but I don't frequent RFA normally, so I don't know how much weight that carries. It's worth having a look at some high quality articles if you haven't done so, to at least get a feel for what is required. for instance, standards of referencing and MOS are very high, and it would help you answer requests like the one above if you were able to comment on what is needed. WP:LEAD, referencing and MOS details are the main problems.
 * As an example, J Milburn's article looks to me close to a B grade, unless it is missing a lot of content, which I wouldn't know. It is fully referenced with in-line citations, has an appropriate lead section and multiple sections. An image isn't required even at GA, although obviously beneficial.

Hope this helps, jimfbleak (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Citation templates includes newspapers and mags jimfbleak (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * no, it essentially consists of a lead and what amount to three reference sections, with no real body of content jimfbleak (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help overhearing...
You don't seem to be quite sure what GA is. At the heavy metal WikiProject, there were several editors who have written a few heavy metal GAs- myself, (a few obscure bands) LuciferMorgan, (Slayer) M3talH3ad, (various) Burningclean (various) and Drewcifer3000 (Nine Inch Nails) all spring to mind. I recommend you take a look at some examples of heavy metal GAs to get an idea of what is required. To be fair, it does vary- a little more would be expected for a band like Slayer than some obscure one man east-European black metal project. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mandrake (band)
Ok, sure, I'll take a look for you. J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I've given it a clean, and here are some pointers:
 * The lead should include only information that is elsewhere. I write the lead last when writing from scratch, and don't bother including references, as, to me, it's more important that the facts are referenced in the body.
 * Album names should be in italics, songs in speech marks. Just a thing to remember.
 * Citation templates are your friends.
 * Unrelated comments like "The death metal/black metal scene has been dominated by the Scandinavian countries since the '90s" should be integrated with the actual prose. Something like "The Mandrake aims to incorporate influences from the Scandinavian black metal scene, which had dominated black metal in the nineties" or something, but be careful only to mention these 'related' things when another source has linked them, to avoid unpublished synthesis.
 * Obviously, expansion is needed before you can start thinking about GA.
 * Careful about over-repetition of "the band"


 * I'm gonna go and give the page another clean myself now- do you have a ready supply of sources that you can expand the article with? J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch unreliable sources- stuff like Geocities is a no-no. You could make an argument for interviews that have been mentioned by the band elsewhere, even if they would normally be unreliable in themselves, but reviews on sites like that can't really be touched with a bargepole. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Horna and adminship
I'll take a look at Horna in a sec- I don't think I have ever heard anything by them, which is odd, considering the size of them! It may be worth adding a 'collaboration of the moment' section to the WikiProject page and sticking Horna in- that would be an easier project than the main article.

Considering your adminship- it's only a couple of months since your last RfA- it was only early March, wasn't it? People do not like numerous nominations in quick succession; some people receive heavy opposes just because they have been nominated so many times, and I even blocked someone recently for repeatedly nominating themselves (to be fair, yours has a little more chance than theirs did!). You still haven't been here that long, and your edit summaries still aren't perfect- a pet peeve of mine. I haven't missed a summary in over a year; you can set a notification in your preferences, meaning that if you ever do forget, you get told to. You have a nice spread of edits- Wikipedia space, talk space, stuff like that; not a massive edit count overall. Still no recognised content (DYK, GA, FA, FL, FP) which often doesn't go down well. You've also got a bit of history- I don't think it would be too hard for people to find reasonably recent diffs where you've behaved inappropriately, and I suspect the whole Urban Rose stuff would be brought up. RfA is rough at the moment (and, I'll be fair, I've opposed a lot of people of late) with a lot of questions- some of which are rather difficult, others of which are pathetic, but giving the 'wrong' answer gives you a pile-on of opposes. Oh, and there's a guaranteed oppose if you self-nom. I wouldn't like to guess which way I'd lean without seeing the answers to your questions, but I can see an RfA from you being close at best. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When you create new sections on talk pages, it should give an automatic summary, something like this, so that counts (or should count) as an edit summary. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How odd. I have no idea how that could be fixed. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I became an admin at a far easier time. Also note the lack of 'optional' questions... I doubt I would have passed like that if I was nommed now, but I would have probably been scared off the project from my first nomination... I really wasn't ready. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, I've responded to your question here. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invitation
Re: I accept your invitation. — Balthazar  (T 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Redondasaurus.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Redondasaurus.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deviant Records
Re: Ah, I never thought to check if was the right one. It didn't occur to me that there could be more than one with the same name. — Balthazar  (T 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Weatherbed's talk page
I noticed you reverted this users' edit where they blanked the page. For future reference, a user is perfectly within their rights to blank their own user/talk page (although archiving is preferred) per WP:USER. Regards ——Ryan  |  t   •  c   21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Satanic Elite userbox
I love it. Even though I'm not Satanic nor is all black metal Satanic. Anti-Christian? Yes. Satanic? No. But the whole "Satan" thing is about other things, which I refuse to state here, as it would be very unkvlt. So I love it. Is this what we're officially using now?? Instead of the other one? Or is it just for fun? Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wicked sweet. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 23:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthrosexual
It would have been easier - not to mention more useful - just to fix the redirect so it wasn't double than it was to tag the redirect for speedy deletion. I have denied your speedy deletion request and fixed the redirect myself. (You might think about taking that approach in the future.) <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

???
Whats a check user?--Lilboogie (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 2f40d4a2caf5c7d6bee57fdcfdb1cec0
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Image source problem with Image:Wcrswiki.jpg?
I'm entirely puzzled by the nomination to have the poster art for this film contested on copyright tags. This was contested once before, the proper tags were added. In the graphics page at the bottom there is clear information stating that the poster's copyright is owned by "Unstable Ground, Inc.". I happen to run and own Unstable Ground, Inc., the corporation is officially registered in my name. My username is even "unstableground". What exactly is missing here now that wasn't missing for the last 4 months?

I also find it rather odd that this happened simultaneous with another attack (yes, i'm calling it attack) on my film's page content. Do you just have something against the film and want it buried? Do a google search, all of the info on the page is easily obtainable. All that I did over the past few days is update it now that we have an official distribution deal... through a Koch based distributor no less. This means it will be in every major retail chain in North America, and is a significant release... so I don't understand the attacks on it's relevance.

In any case, I've added the information again. It was there, and for some reason it disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unstableground (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Proposed deletion of Working Class Rock Star
I have responded to you in the User Talk on the film's page. Please read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unstableground (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cole Motor
Sorry, I just went back a couple edits and saw it was mostly nonsense. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ccrsb.png
For Image:Ccrsb.png, Fair use rationale does (and did always) exist. Please double check before tagging. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd look again it says: It is believed that this image is considered fair use in the article Chignecto-Central Regional School Board because: Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it illustrates the public school board in question,
 * there is no free alternative,
 * it is only used for informational purposes.


 * Once agian, it always had a FUR, per WP:NFURG. The template is not a requirement. The only difference now, is that it now says it's low resolution. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the "very low resolution" clause to the original non-free use rationale. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA
I've seen your message, give me 24 to have a look at contribs etc. jimfbleak (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through, and I've also read the comments by Nick Mallory and J Milburn above. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but I'd be inclined to give it a bit longer.

One reason I rarely frequent RFA is that is overly nit-picking. A recent very "safe" candidate was opposed because he said he didn't expect to use the powers much - there isn't a limit on admins, so level of activity shouldn't matter. On the content thing (why that matters, I don't know), if you want to try for a GA, pick a subject which has plenty of available info to give you a reasonable length. I'm conscious that there is a bit of history at RFA, and I think it would be better to plug away for a but longer before another shot. jimfbleak (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblack metal
I'm unconvinced that unblack and black metal are two separate genres; one seems to me to clearly be a subgenre of the other; a reliable source for this would be Gary Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Black Metal (Cherry Red Books), which specifically includes unblack bands under the umbrella of black metal. Obviously, we can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself, but we need to maintain some consistency; both the black metal and unblack metal pages state that unblack is a subgenre of black. This should be reflected in the list. Incidentally, there are a number of other unblack bands currently on the list... I appreciate it's a controversial issue but I'm fairly confident that reliable sources will support this position. But hey, I'll go with consensus. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revert
It was perfectly ok for the user to remove the warnings from his talk page (I'm responding to this). Its acknowledgment that the messages were received (he has also begun dialog with respect to the dispute). Regards from &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">Syn 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not a problem. I could tell something was amiss when after or around that edit you suddenly stopped, and your status was saying otherwise. Regards &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">Syn 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
I don't have checkuser powers. Why are the edits a problem - it doesn't look like vandalism to me? With RFA, see my note above. I'll nominate you now if that's what you want, but I think it's better to wait a while more jimfbleak (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad
Thanks for your contribution to the article, about polygyny. Please double-check your quotes, though. There appear to be some words missing. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar! I'm honored. =) That vandal looks vaguely familiar, but I can't quite place him.  I did have a premonition of sorts as a few minutes ago I deleted a "THIS IS PAYNE" article stating he doesn't exist yet, but will soon.  Strange.  Oh well.  Thanks for reverting everything. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your message: Yeah, too many vandals to keep track of, unfortunately. =\ -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I personally don't think having an FA is a must (but then I don't have an FA, so perhaps I'm a little biased). I think the most important thing is that you find your preferred area of Wikipedia and work really hard at that for awhile.  It doesn't particularly matter where that area is: XfDs, RC, new pages, etc. (though certainly if you wish to do admin work, you have to pick somewhere were admins do work).  You are going to have to work hard to overcome the issues that you were brought up at your last RfA.  Showing that you can assist in whatever area you choose would go a long ways towards overcoming those issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexuals article rewritten
Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been restored
to User:Undead warrior/Musta Surma -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dimmu Borgir
Sorry to hear about your uncle - can't really come up with any sympathetic comments, other than the fact that you're in my thoughts. Indeed, I can help you work the article towards FA status. It'll be a difficult process however, and the article needs much work. The article features many weasly statements, all of which need to be zapped. I'd recommend going with the example of Slayer, as a template of how to proceed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Demos
You've reverted quite a few of my WP:PROD's on what I feel to be non-notable demos - can I confirm as to whether you're contesting notability? If you are indeed contesting notability, I can then WP:AFD these articles to reach wider consensus. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your position. If the consensus is that the criteria shouldn't be changed however, would you object to me re-inserting the WP:PROD tag on the articles in question? LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins aren't actually allowed to delete an article until 5 days after the tag. However, if the consensus is that demos are non-notable, it's easier to put the tags back up as opposed to bringing each and every one to AFD - unless, of course, it can be proved that demos are notable under the present guidelines. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Black Funeral
I'm not too sure on whether to get involved in the improvement of this article, given the fact that their notability hasn't been established in the article yet. I wouldn't wish to article on an article which becomes deleted. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to whom have the group released 3/4 CDs via Season of Mist? This is pure fiction - the label's official website lists the label's whole catalogue, and nowhere is Black Funeral mentioned. Furthermore, the group's official biography makes no mention of Season of Mist. This is erroneous information, and there is actually the real danger the article will be deleted. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Airports
Your question re:notability is perhaps best served if it were asked of the folks at WP:AIRPORTS. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly free to disagree. One of the major things they keep hammering home in Wikipedia is that consensus can change, The Novels WikiProject, as an example, has been instrumental in changing notability guidelines for books. And in fact many Wikiprojects exist in order to come up with some sort of guidelines regarding notability for their particular topic. Heck I just found out there's even a Wikiproject for Disambiguation pages if you can believe it. A Wikiproject such as the Airports one is going to be where guidelines regarding notable airports is likely to be crafted.  As far as inclusion in general, I pretty much need to be given proof that including an article like this causes harm to someone or to Wikipedia. There are articles that do, such as hoax articles, articles that are inherently WP:BLP-violating, major WP:NOR violatations and copyvio, or articles on topics that are demonstratively unnotable (i.e. the old "stuff made up in school one day" issue or vanity articles). But I don't see an airport - private or not - falling into those categories. Back to the original point, if discussion at WP:AIRPORT turns against the idea of having articles of this nature, then that holds as much weight as consensus that such articles do belong. 23skidoo (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox 2
I see what you mean! He appears to be testing cats. I've left a message on the user talk page to see where we go from here. jimfbleak (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * reply here] jimfbleak (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:
OK, won't do that again. JazzlineB (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)