Please click here to leave a message.

TALK PAGE ARCHIVES

John Norum

You've started a war editing with no reason. John is the co-founder AND the current Europe axeman, so there's no need to edit this information. If you want to edit that page adding or modifying important informations you're free to do it, but you've also to respect others' contributions, expecially if they are checked and correct. Have a good wikitime. --MusicIsMyLove 07:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a teenager since a LOT of years, and your approach to this page written almost entirely by me was and still is really impolite. Next time, try to explain your editing avoiding offensive tones, and keeping the respect for the ones that worked hard to write a good and useful article. I can easily change the word axeman, but you'd have to keep in mind that AXEMAN is the common way to call a guitarist. --MusicIsMyLove 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicIsMyLove (talk • contribs)

English is not my first language, but I have the same right to write an article in English without asking the permission to do it. If I'm wronging, please update me. If you want to edit it because of grammar mistakes, do it, EXPLAINING the editing and keeping a polite mode. Thanks.--MusicIsMyLove 11:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you when you state that the most important thing here is to have good articles, correctly written and respectful of the Wiki rules. And it's my aim to do my best with my contributions. It's the way you persist considering it "horribly written", "childish", "extremely poor" and so on that's offensive for the people that work at it since years. This article is here since years, a lot of people has given their contributions but you're the one and the only that has expressed a personal opinion in such bad terms. None is a teacher here, and no one could personally state if an article is good or bad, Wiki is a peer to peer community. So, each opinion will be taken in the right consideration, if expressed respectfully.--MusicIsMyLove 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicIsMyLove (talk • contribs)

Got your message. Will gladly help. The article had more issues than just that poorly written lead. All the text is a copyvio cut/paste from an external website. I will alert an admin friend as to what has happened and see what he thinks should be done. Libs (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. It's a copy/paste WP:COI issue. Most/all of the text will have to be removed. If you need resources to try and build the article back up I am a librarian and can likely find some pro publications in our database that I can link to you for some decent content. have a nice day! Libs (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone here tried to delete this article writing that it was a copy/past of the content of another website. Well, I've written most of the parts of this article, and I've taken some of the content from a website dedicated to John Norum. I'm the administrator of that website, I have no problem in giving the authorization to use that content. Since I've checked every single infos before publish them, and I've written just facts and not personal opinions, please let me know in which way it could be seen as a conflict of interests. Anyway, someone else has re-edited. Before starting a war, let's talk!--MusicIsMyLove 16:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicIsMyLove (talk • contribs)

That's still a WP:COI issue and I can't help with that. The text from your website can't be added. And you can't edit the page based on anything to do with your personal website since that becomes a conflict of interest. An editor has offered an opportunity to create a referenced article using valid citations. Fansites do not meet WP:RS and can't be used as refs. We will have to rebuild from scratch using something else. Your website is fine for your enjoyment. But it can't be used for Wikipedia. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that's really hard for you to be a bit more polite, isn't it? You're tremendously OFFENSIVE, and you aren't able to understand that write things like "it's a poor quality article from a poor quality website" are offensive words. Who are you to judge the quality of a website? My website wasn't born "for my enjoyment" but to give CORRECT and more infos about John Norum, since at that time it was really hard to find something about him on the net. And since I'm a hard music lover and a huge Norum's admirer, I've checked every single info. I still don't understand the reason why a correct source of information as that article was (since 2 years) has been deleted and not simply edited.

I still don't think that this attitude is correct and respectful of others' contributors work. MusicIsMyLove 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just call it like I see it. Sorry if you don't like a blunt opinion. I don't cow-tow around anything on Wikipedia. I just do what needs to be done and let the Barnstars speak for themselves. The John Norum article will be improved. But it will be improved following all Wikipedia polices and editing rules. That's the only way I know how to do it and do it properly. Read WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. Also read WP:CON. These are the foundations Wiki was built on. The offer for citations came from a librarian who has access to material that will meet Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. It was a generous offer which I will take him up on when I have more time to apply to it. For now all I have time for is vandal hunting.(which is a non-stop need on Wikipedia). Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've given just your opinion. It's not my aim to start a fight, I have a life and tons of things in my life that need my attention. That's a hobby for me, not a MISSION as it seems that's for you. You've stated that the article will be improuved. Well, I hope so. And I hope that it will be re-edited in the best English ever and following all the English Wiki's rules. I'll be there to check every single info that will be written, and I'll edit all the ones that won't be correct. Work well! MusicIsMyLove 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicIsMyLove (talk • contribs)

Your assistance will be appreciated. But mind Wikipedia's WP:OWN policy. Your "correct" must mean correct and not just POV. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. But poorly written articles can be torn down in a second. Good articles take time and patience. And citations from reliable sources. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do my best to be helpful. "Correct" in this case meant to have checked every single info. In which way? Asking to people closely related to Mr Norum, to Mr Norum himself, checking the official website and the official bulletins on the media. Etc etc etc. Only one official biography of Mr Norum was published, it's written in Swedish language and it was in the booklet of the Swedish special edition of "Face the Truth" album. I have it and I've translated it for my site and for Wiki. No other official reliable sources. Just tons of uncorrect infos on the music related sites. So... once again, work well! Take care. MusicIsMyLove 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicIsMyLove (talk • contribs)

Wikiproject: Guitarists

Thanks for the welcome anger. Quick question for you, what is a typical "reliable" source for information regarding guitars? Manufacturers websites? Thanks Washburnmav (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ice

I'm just glad to see I'm not the only person reverting this stuff. Cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - there's a pretty good chance that will be the right title for the album, but I want to see some decent source to prove it first. Then I'll be right there reverting myself, I guess! Anyway, I'm doing okay somehow, despite the best efforts of some people in life! Hope you're doing well too :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Cheers for this, i tend to always check the history to see that i get all the vandalism but obviously i didn't do it well this time! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. For me, since I edit so many music articles I just compare the current version to the last time I edited it myself and look for the fluff. Speaking of which, that article is still loaded with it and could use some extra care if you have the time. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobs

The article was merged with less than 50 minutes of discussion by User:Xymmax and only one person nominating. There was no discussion of it on the article talkpage. That IMO is poor. MegX (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me of any other Zeppelin related AfD nominations you come across. I've kept on notify almost all of them, but not some of the peripheral ones. MegX (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is/are

hiya.

regarding the gnr article, I know that an American band should use American English (seems fair to me) however I wasn't changing the grammar based on American/British English, I was changing it based on the rules for collective nouns, in both British and American English, we should use "are" when refering to a band name that uses plurals. check out the link on the gnr talk page if you want more info. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And after I left my post I found other similar examples of are being used for band names using plurals. Looks OK to me. By text book rules, Canadians should use British English. But due to our close proximity to the US we tend to alter our day-to-day speech/text to mimic those of our neighbour, rather than that of our British heritage. And, having finished my own education 30 years ago, I tend to forget the textbooks. Thanks for the follow up. Cheers and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big problem - I always think people should use the grammar related to the subject in question - but in this case the grammar is the same for both American and British English... I get confused with both of them, I am British, I work abroad and use American English on a daily basis. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would have not left me with a vandalism warning on my talk page, and instead, would have explained the situation to me on my talk page as you would have done to a regular contributor. Thank you. 75.179.6.2 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a vandalism warning it was a article 'testing' reminder for ignoring WP:ENGVAR. If you make a wrong edit your are obligated to correct your own mistake. You left the article in an incorrect "Yankee" grammar state rather than the proper British grammar wording. Just don't do it again. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin links

Uhm, from a LZ forum I found an interesting site about Led Zeppelin discographies: [1]. I think it's a huge list of records / cds that it's not available anywhere else. I see that it was removed but billboard (is it a discography?!?) and Discogs (this was supposed to be interesting but now is only a waste of time) are still there. Will you let me understand better what's ok or helpful or important or interesting for you? Thanks Artemio

Read WP:EL. Your link has been discussed by other editors and consensus is not to include it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't understand why as well, but if this are the rules I'll understand wikipedia a little bit better. Not what is interesting but what you decide? I don't care about that site but as a Led Zeppelin addict I think is unique, isn't it? Thanks for your useless reply. Artemio

You don't care about your own personal website that you have been trying to spam Wikipedia with for over a year? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably referring to someone else, I guess. Artemio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.209.199 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief.

DVdm (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - forgot the body of the message - bad copy/paste job - Sorry :-)

But never mind, by now it's already covered om my talk page. Thanks & cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

You're welcome, and my apologies. I'll explain on the talk page in a bit. Orane (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Need your assistance

Apologies, I had just gone offline when the message was left (contrary to my 'this user is online' thing...) but Journalist seems to have reverted him/herself, so you should be free to discuss the issue on the talk page now. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

The Queen project does not have the right to over-ride wikipeida's core policies of verifiability and the related guideline of no original research. Please revert yourself to the version that most closely complies with these policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the article talk page and will wait to here from that Projects active members as to what should be done. It's simple respect. I 'have the com' on a few Wiki projects. And if someone steps in and goes against any of those Project mandates that person gets blocked for the disturbance. I am not a meber of the Queen Project. But I will respect them enough to see what they say on the matter. Wikipedia is a community. Not an indiviual effort. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you respect Wikipeida's consensus process, you will agree that the community as a whole supports verifiablity and its application to all articles and projects. However the Queen project decides is the best way to organize single and album discussions, they are not allowed to violate the ocmmunity's consensus that no origial research is allowed and all analysis must be sourced. I ask you again to return the article to a version that does not so blatantly violate these core ideals of Wikipedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that the Queen Project decided to merge all the individual song articles to the album is dated as well. Most of the songs have their own individual mostly unsourced articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the single were given reprieve during their AfD process. Non-singles were merged.

Keeping cruft is not a habit. I am a staunch Wiki-deletionist and I try to AfD or speedy delete massive volumes of tripe on Wikipedia on a daily basis. But I support a community decision. Wiki is the only place where consensus can outweigh verifiablity. And a Wiki Project took it upon itself to nominate dozens of articles covered under its own mandate. And the result of the AfD procedure, which was a full community choice, was to merge the content into the main album articles. This was done for every album from the band not just the one you have dispute with. Trust me, of English Wikipedia's 2.5 million articles I would gladly delete 2 million of them if I had the power. But the project is built on community so the community always wins. Jimbo's first rule of editing is to ignore all the rules. But never at the cost of the community, or its consensus as to how it is built. All in due time. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until the Wikipedia community consensus decides that WP:V is not a policy, the policy over-rides any individual project's decision to do otherwise. The policy is clearly written

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." It does not say "must be tagged" and allowed to sit for six months. Unsourced material "may be removed." -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert yourself on this edit Neither you nor the Queen Project have the authroity to ignore Wikipedia policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did spot the 2 offending little bits in the lead. Apologies for not picking that off before. As for the merged content you must show some patience to the Project covering these pages. One day isn't patience. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. If no active members have been online to see the alert placed on their Project then we should repect them and wait. The tag which I placed to identify your concern with the page draws attention from the entire Wikipedia community not just the Queen project. {Original research} tags are like magnets for Wiki-cleanliness-klans. Patience and restraint. Its not too hard. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out when the merge occured? I have looked back as far as November and the only significant additions to the article are a few sentances of clearly unsourced opinion.

And again, the Queen project does not have the authority to put Wikipedia policies "on hold" for an additional six months until they decide to provide sources. Policy says the unsourced material should come out. At any time in the future, editors from the project are still free to add sourced analysis to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I will ask you to revert your insertion of unsourced material and analysis into the article. While patience is a virtue, it is not a policy while verfifiability is policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I didn't insert unsourced material. I simply replaced material blanked in bad faith of WP:AGF. Your 1 WP:V is trumped by WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:EQ etc. As I have said. I am a deletionist. I hate OR and uncited content. But I respect Wikipedia Project mandates. And I respect "the process". Had I been a part of the AfD's which resulted in the merged content I would've voted to delete it. But I ws not a part of that process and the process said merge. My AGF is that a Project member will respond to the challenge to either cite or remove. And my Wiki-patience (which is thin-to-none) is just courtious enough to give them more than a day. Patience young grasshopper.... patience. It's what Wikipedia is all about. Chill. Go make a featured article or something. Trust me, I've done many and it's very fulfilling. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is no difference policy-wise between insertion of unsourced material and re-insertion of unsourced material.

2) Please withdraw your accuastion of my acting in bad faith. Removal of unsourced material is fully supported by policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets says we give them until, hmmm, Friday. And if they don't respond you can blank away. That's a good measure of AGF and gives lots of time to work on an FA somewhere. I know you just want to clean out the cruft. Which is a valid thing to want to do. I just think a little respect towards the Queen Project is a polite thing to do (seeing as how they were told by a full community AfD process to merge the song content into the article) Just about every Queen album article is in need of a good flushing. I;d say a good test of whether that project is even active would be to warn them (which has been done) that a page within the project is about to get "Hoovered" if they don't wake up. If you ask me I'd say the Project is a pretty much dormant. But I can still AGF them a little more time. Speaking of projects, do you play guitar? The guitarist project could use another dedicated editor in the ranks. You definitely seem like someone who is determined to make an reliable encyclopedia from this grand experiment. If you're interested drop by the Project page and take a look around. Feel free to contact me for more information. We'd love to have you onboard. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckcherry

Why did you change Infobox Musical artist2 to Infobox Musical artist? Infobox Musical artist2 is better since it has the styles field. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Just noticing. Template:Infobox Musical artist2 which contains the rejected field and is a template not supported by WP:MUSICIAN should be speedy deleted quickly as it has already been mistakenly used on a couple of different articles. Thanks again for following up on your hasty change. Perhaps you can put it forward again another day as an option for the Musician Project to ponder. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the Mariah Carey article. Just to further note on how Allmusic has been rejected as a reliable source for genres; One of the listed entries in the box was adult contemporary. I am guessing this error comes from blindly using Allmusic as a cut/paste for the content of the field. But it demonstrates a key reason why the genre/style split won't work on Wiki. Adult contemporary is a radio format and not a genre or style at all. The same problem pops up often when editors mistakenly add AOR into the genre box. Again a clear radio format and not a genre or style and yet it is used incorrectly in many Allmusic articles. Wikipedia clearly defines these terms as radio formats and not genres so adding them into the infobox and using allmusic as a support is, in fact adding contradictory information and also blatantly false information as well. The use of "classic rock" is another example. Its a radio format and not a genre. But it gets mistakenly added as genre sometimes on Wikipedia, usually by new editors who don't know Wiki's accepted formats. There are still a few more pages using the test template with the rejected field. If you don't have time to correct them yourself let me know and I will correct them for you. Cheers and take care. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you don't get to decide what works on Wikipedia. A discussion among five people does not dictate a binding policy on Wikipedia. I was told that the project may not accept the change to "their" infobox. I was not told that it was imperative that I use that particular infobox, that it is binding, or that I can't edit the way I choose. Wikipedia isn't a democracy.

Notice this: A short while ago, the Wikipedia FA crtieria advised that potential featured articles "should comply with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects." That statement has now been removed, which may imply that it has been recognized that not everyone agrees with the various projects, and they in no way dictate how people should act. Seriously, don't overestimate your project's "jurisdiction".

Adult contemporary is a radio format according to what/who? An article that lacks any sort of inline citations and references? AC is a radio format, yes, but it also denotes the style of music played on said radio. If you ask me, it's the articles within Wikiepdia that are "blatantly false" and need to be corrected and updated. Editors like you seem to esteem "consensus" (among, like, 3 people?) over Citing actual sources, which is a major reason why Wikipedia is falling to pieces. Cheers and take care! Orane (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need something to talk about, focus on the fact that your infobox has a field for "voice type", prompting editors to add largely subjective and unsourced info, despite the lengthy discussion and edit wars and overhaul that occurred months (probably a years ago) fighting the influx of unsourced additions regarding voice types and vocal profiles (highest notes, lowest notes, longest notes etc). Orane (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it isn't "my" box. :) . "My" box was the beautiful/simple Guitarist Infobox (since removed). The Guitarist Project reluctantly voted to delete our infobox in favour of the Musician Project box after they agreed to included the instrument field (which, like all of the others, get abused). We agreed with the format as it was as long as it wasn't chenged without our project being consulted. (again more towards the field we requested) I personally do not like the voice_type field. It believe the history of that one goes to the Opera WikiProject. So, even though I do not line it, I respect that wish to have it there. I also do not like the origin field as it is never used properly. It should be a "band only" field. One fundamental field that is strangely missing is a "birthplace" field. Which means 'birthplace' has to be added as a coded break entry into the birth date field.(which as mentioned earlier, is rarely done properly) I also have had a major dislike of the colour choices right from the get-go. The coloured background field was the main reason the Guitarist Project created its own box in the first place. Oh well, we live with what we live with. The battle ground over the colours in that field was so fierce that I hope it never gets revisited (even though I don't like them) just because the battle caused a lot of wheel spinning and was a road block to productivity where music related articles were concerned. Consensus within the Song and Album projects seems to come so easy. But within the Musician Project... the battle field never seem to go away. But productive debate is good. And, in the end, Wikipedia will be better someday. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to you were not meant to extract a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA from you. I was only trying to assist you where you were making an error. I can see you are dedicated to trying to improve Wikipedia. But your passion for your opinion and your rejection of a consensus by a very busy WikiProject is not worth being de-sysop'd over. When I receive barnstars or push article to featured status it is not with the intention of making "WIkipedia fall to pieces". I do not see where you think that is what I am doing and am confused by the attack. I would think, as I near 30000 edits, that my dedication here wouldn't be questioned. I have been asked to allow my name to stand for RfA at least 20 times since I started here. And receive at least one email a week asking me to take on the mop. But I have rejected this honour in favour of doing what I do best... simply editing based on policy, community and consensus. I know the responsibility you have taken on by accepting the toolbox. And I sincerely hope that, though proper channels withing the Musician Project that you proposal may be accepted someday. But I just wish that in the future you are a bit more polite with me when I try to help. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. You may have intended to be "civil" and "helpful", but I found your message deeply condescending. You state how you "corrected" my edits, call my edit(s) "contradictory", "blatant false" and practically ordered me to delete it immediately without a second thought, and now state that I may be de-sysop'd, and you expect me to be cheery? I did not attack you. I stated that people's obsession with "consensus", even when that consensus contradicts authoritative sources (a big no-no on Wikipedia) is a major problem within Wikipedia. I did not intend to say you deliberately ruin the project. Orane (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can AGF that your remarks about making Wikipedia fall to pieces were not directed at me personally. I would also like to note, after seeing you refer to the WikiProject Musicians as "my" project... I am not a member of that project. Never have been. Never will be. But I am the driving wedge for the Guitarist Project whose tagged articles cross over many of the the articles marked by the Musician Project. Since the musician Infobox is shared by numerous music projects (except the composer project who flatly rejected the entire box and do not use it) proper protocol should be that whenever a proposed change to the box is introduced an alert should be placed on on the Project "siblings" so that all can take part. Unfortunatel this doesn't happen often so each project has members who "hawk" the Musician project so that nothing slips through the cracks. We all work towards the better "wiki-good". But the communication lines could always be improved. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further comment I would like to note, after seeing you refer to the WikiProject Musicians as "my" project several times... I am not a member of that project. Never have been. Never will be. But I am the driving wedge for the Guitarist Project whose tagged articles cross over many of the the articles marked by the Musician Project. Since the musician Infobox is shared by numerous music projects (except the composer project who flatly rejected the entire box and do not use it) proper protocol should be that whenever a proposed change to the box is introduced an alert should be placed on on the Project "siblings" so that all can take part. Unfortunatly this doesn't happen often so each project has members who "hawk" the Musician project so that nothing slips through the cracks. We all work towards the better "wiki-good". But the communication lines could always be improved. Even ours :). I see your dedication to the Wikipedia Project. Hopefully you see mine a little better too. I do hope we can find a common ground and perhaps we can work together on a Featured Article someday. I've done several. But I haven't pushed an FA is quite a while. I am overdue for one. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the incorrect assumption. I automatically assumed this because you were the first to always contact me whenever there was concern over my actions. To tell the truth, I automatically assumed that you were an Admin. I agree with the breakdown in communication across the various projects, and hopefully that can be fixed soon. Congrats on your FA's. I've only written one, a few years ago (can't find the time nor energy to do more), which has gone to hell and back a few times. It may need updating now, but I'm too lazy. Would be willing to work with you, if time permits. Orane (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 5000 pages on my watchlist. I am sure we will cross paths on an article of mutual interest someday. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Here To Help

Hey mate, seen a lot of reversions out of you, which is great. But I happen to be a Ba:Lit grad and I was wondering if there were any projects you would like a little bit of wordy work on. Get back to me.

What is your edit interest. Lots of guitarist stubs need expansion. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a drummer myself, but I like practicing my critical writing so anything is fine.InterislanderTom (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I accidentally left you a vandalism warning after failing to pay attention to the revert order. Thedarxide (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted and removed the Huggle warning so you don't get accidentally blocked. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, I'm a bassist/guitarist/drummer (spit! :P), I'll check the project out. Thedarxide (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know if you have any questions. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Really nice to get your welcome note. Hope you can check out some articles I'm working on and give feedback. What can I do to help? Black Stripe (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will look at your articles. Let me know if you have any questions. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Frusciante

You must be mistaken. I don't know who Spike Wilbury is, but it was Grim-Gym and I who brought John Frusciante to Featured Status. Not this "Spike Wilbury". I am actually rather offended. It was Grim-Gym and I alone. Please get your facts straight. Second of all, I know every single thing about Frusciante. Everything. Therefore, I can tell you better than anyone else, that he's obviously a notable guitar player. The tabs in the infobox are not mandatory and adding "guitar" would not help anyone realize he's a guitarist. NSR77 ^T_C 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the above comment. Haha. I read your first reply without finishing. It got me a little miffed. My apologies. Anyway, I take photographs for magazines sometimes as a side job and someone I met from a photo shoot was selling their original Strat so I bought it from them. I got the Jag in a somewhat similar situation. That's really cool that you also have a 62 Strat. I love vintage guitars. The sound that comes from them just reeks of the wisdom things are only granted with the passing of time. NSR77 ^T_C 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the fields should be filled in where possible. Hopefully not over-killed. Would you mind if it was put to a discussion on the talk page. It was granted FA status with the field filled ion so it shouldn't be too offensive to anyone. It should be a consensus decision and not just one/two people calling the rules. That's a WP:OWN vio. I have owned several elderly Jags along the way. I don't have any in the boneyard right now though. I am currently on a quest for the perfect Tele. I already own 3. The oldest, a 68, is not bad but there is something missing that I just can't nail on it. The other 2 are both around the same vintage. One of them is heavily modified and is one of my main studio guitars. But I use it for mellow Jazz tones (the mods) and it does not snap and twang like a Tele should. The other 2 come close. But not quite. I will keep looking. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUITAR invitation

Yeah, I'll join. Guitar is one of my main hobbies after all.

Thanks!

NeedNotGreed | T | C 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British English on Led Zeppelin

These edit wars over the use of singular or plural verbs in the Led Zeppelin article are not getting us to the point, which is producing a stellar article about a very important group. I have commented in a measured tone with an attempt to explain the situation to my American compatriots. However, I feel some further action is necessary. My suggestion is to place a disclaimer at the top of the page explaining the use of British English. It may even warrant addition to the Led Zeppelin talk page template, perhaps a separate div box with a Union Jack and some bold text. The text might actually use the comment "Please do not change this to "were", it will be reverted back quickly. Wikipedia is an American Website, so none of that English Proper Garbage on here." made by our Texan friend 99.160.8.134 against him. For example, "en.wikipedia.org is the English Language version of Wikipedia. It is not an American website", etc. The wording can be discussed and agreed to over on the project page.

I would like to know more about this situation in general. I have looked around a little but haven't found anything other than the statement on the WP:Led Zeppelin page. If you know of any official stance regarding which form of English is to be used in which articles, please explain it or point me to it. This is unquestionably a tough issue to deal with - AI hasn't advanced enough to allow for robots that routinely repair misplaced subject-verb agreements in these cases. Sswonk (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

You've been a busy lad, haven't you? What's the news? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your page. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Robinson image

Hey, I'm flattered that you like the image of Rich that I contributed, but I think it is worth it to drop the old image into the spot currently occupied by the dupe of the Newport photo. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC album

Hey there, I don't know if you've already noticed, but the article on the new AC/DC album is up for deletion. I'm against the deletion - I don't know if you are or not, but if you're against, have your say here here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But no one ever said that Saint Anger sounded like Slayer. St. Anger was just very poorly produced, mixed, and written. I think if it was more refined, it has the outlines of what could be considered speed metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1123 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk instead of trying to block me okay

Those two projects didn't look active for me okay, sorry, i thought i was doing the best for the project okay sorry, wont happen again. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to block you. But your actions were not those of a person who honours the community. They were the actions of an asshole. Sorry to be blunt. But re-directing those two project was one of the most ignorant moves I've seen on here in awhile. I was a full-time session musician and touring sidesman from 1968 to 1986. Mostly in the Rock genre. I switched careers in 1986 but still do movie/TV/commercial session part-time. I would love to take part in the Rock Project as my years of experience and my long commitment to Wikipedia could help the project move forward. But not if its mandate is to ignore/usurp other established projects. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably right but. Why i did it was to give the project a better infrastructure like i did on the QotSA taskforce. But its not that importent anyway. Oh and good you became a member of the wikiproject. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet

Quit taking metal out or ill report your for vandalismZakkman (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-direct is being questioned

Here Thanks for doing it BTW. It was overdue. Libs (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Les Paul Studio

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a line letting you know that I did some cleanup to Gibson Les Paul Studio and managed to get it promoted from "stub" to "c class". I have kind of found my calling as a copyeditor on wikipedia and would be happy to copyedit some more Guitar-equipment related articles if you would be kind enough to point me towards a few in need. Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably higher than a C class, I figured it was *minimum* C, so re-class as necessary. –xeno (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah

Good day! Can you please tell me where does WP:RS say that sources such as this one are not reliable?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 02:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key word = blog. Linking to an blog written by a nobody does not constitute a reliable source. It's an sps. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but WP:SPS says also "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That material on MetalKult is produced by "a senior editor at Guitar World magazine. His writing has also appeared in the pages of Revolver, Alternative Press, Bass Guitar, CMJ Monthly, as well as on PaperThinWalls.com" [2]. Except for that, the amount and the momentousness of the information that has been take from the website is absolutely minimal - it is only two terms: technical metal and death-tech which are both mentioned once in the Meshuggah article - in a list of more than 10 genres. Nothing more. Therefore I think that the source is acceptable. -- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Mack

Just finished copyediting Lonnie Mack.Feel free to give feedback on my edits. I did some heavy reorganization and added tables to awards and the discography. I also did quite a bit of grammar/ redundancy corrections. Washburnmav (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be considered for a much higher rank as well. I don't want to promote it myself due to COI but I think it could be B class or higher at this point. Washburnmav (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Mack

Thanks for all your efforts and advice. I really appreciate them. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Clapton

"It was rude of me to speak about the guitarist project and not ask if you are a guitar player yourself"

Not rude in the least. I appreciate both of your messages. No, I am not a guitarist, just a regular guy who loves what Clapton can do with one. Ward3001 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Box Inclusion - Music

Can you provide a reason for resisting the inclusion of awards in the Music Box? Is there a compelling reason why it should be singled out when so many other boxes have it? Examples provided on the talk page. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which awards are notable enough for inclusion? Fanzine polls? Magazine "hall of fame" inclusions. The infobox is already over-populated with fields that 99% of Wikipedia editors have no idea how to populate correctly. Adding another will just mean more janitorial work. It's a discussion that's been beaten to death already many times over. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Clapton Copyedit

Done

Should definitely be considered for GA and after some reference adding, FA. Washburnmav (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

Hey Anger, would you mind offering a second opinion on the Eric Clapton discussion here? Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenalize revert

Hey there. Could you point me towards the relevant rules/guidelines that led you to revert my editing the forms of participation in Adrenalize? Thanks. —Zeagler (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links on how to avoid lowering Wikipedia into a cheap, poorly written project can be found at WP:CRUFT. The album cleanup falls under several policies and guidelines, beside avoiding WP:CRUFT. WP:NOT, WP:MOS specifically WP:TONE, WP:NEO etc. Aim for "encyclopedia" is the best motto. Not some poorly written amateur fansite. Too many Wikipedia music articles are already that way. The album project guidelines for correct formatting do not include the words "match the source album wording" anywhere. The guideline there is; clear direct links that do not duplicate anywhere else in the article. Hope that helps. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.

– From WP:CRUFT: "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often...non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion." I don't see how "the voice" and "skins" meet either criterion, seeing as how they're taken straight from the booklet. Changing them to what we think they mean would be original research, however. Granted, it's not really a leap to change them to "vocals" and "drums"...that's why they were wikilinked that way.

– I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for in WP:NOT and WP:MOS. Could you be more specific?

– WP:TONE relates to the prose, and doesn't apply here.

– WP:NEO seems to apply to the prose, as well. (We wouldn't change a song title that contains a neologism.) It's not a problem here because the info has a reference. If anything, WP:NEO is only arguing against my piped links.

– WP:ALBUM doesn't include the words "simplify forms of participation to the most common terms", either. Nor does it say "clear direct links that do not duplicate anywhere else in the article", for that matter.

– Check Freak Out! for an example of a featured article with credits that report some odd terms the artist saw fit to print. —Zeagler (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starcaster

OK, I see your point. We'll just have to wait until we get a free image for an original. Black Kite 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought - could you look at some of the free images of guitarists known to play the Starcaster (i.e. Image:Radiohead-Jonny.jpg) in case there's a decent free image of one there? Black Kite 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Black Kite 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Edit

On August 8 2008 you removed the external link to my Charvel site, www.charvels.com.

Any particular reason?

SW [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.217.9 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FramptonComes Alive.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FramptonComes Alive.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Userpage and stuff

Hey there dude! Yeah, I'd be happy to try out something on your userpage. It'd probably end up looking similar to mine because I've forgotten almost everything I learned before so would just have to mash my design together and hope it looks ok here. Or I could hunt down something new and exciting. But whatever the means, I could probably help you out, provided, that is, I have enough time... last year of highschool is a biznatch. Hope you're doing well old friend, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bulge FAR opened

Hey, you apparently have 33 edits in the Battle of the Bulge article, which has just been placed through a featured article review. Your input, if any, would be quite welcomed! Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rock music Newsletter for October 2008

The Rock music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 9 - October 2008

"As long as my face is on page one, I don't care what they say about me on page seventeen."- Mick Jagger
Project news

The project has a total of 106 GAs and 91 Featured Articles and Lists put together.
We collaborated on Soul Bomb.
Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20.
The genres in infobox fields have been removed cause of the discussion found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. You can provide any opinions you may have about this.
This month's "Recommended Rock Album" is Soundgarden - Superunknown (1994).

Editors

User:Be Black Hole Sun

Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)

Hey!!

Hey!! What sights are ya seeing? This better be a metalhead pilgrimage. :P Sorry about not getting to your userpage, by the way, pretty busy final year of high school... I'll work on it though! :) Hope all is well, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I hope that quest goes well, and you better send me a picture. I'm saving up for this beauty. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and not that I'll be able to get this any time soon (it costs $3000 Canadian dollars), but how. Sexy. Is. That. Gray black, too. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Task force

That would probably be a good idea. I'm not sure how to do it though. Izzy007 Talk 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'Notable player' list from Hybrid Picking article?

Thanks for all your excellent guitar-related work. I've been watching Hybrid picking, and I propose removal of the 'Notable' list from that article and maybe moving it to a separate article. See other guitar-related 'Notable' lists like Telecaster players for (equally troublesome) examples. The list at Hybrid Picking is a magnet for repetitive fan-posts (Zakk Wylde, for example), has taken on a life of its own and is about to overshadow the main article, which is about the hybrid picking technique rather than the players. We can certainly expand the article to include notable proponents in context. Full disclosure: I added James Burton and Clarence White to the list a while back. Mea culpa. See related discussion at Talk:Fingerstyle guitar#Let's just delete the list of fingerstyle players, and that list was indeed deleted for the same reasons. Thanks again and best regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing POV opinion lists from all articles like this one. The guitarist project has actually discussed this before. Several "List of" articles wre created from those talks. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I found the old thread on Guitarist project, and have posted a proposal on the Hybrid picking talk page. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Banks Deletion

Hello. I would like to protest the Alan Banks deletion as he meets the standards listed below:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

Multiple interviews and write-ups in Classical Guitar Magazine. Classical Guitar Magazine is the central information source for news in the Classical Guitar genre. It is published and read internationally.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

He has made many radio and TV appearances both in Australia and overseas including live broadcasts and recordings with ABC FM and recordings for BBC Radio 3, the UK’s premiere classical music station. His 2003 recording of Peter Scullthorpe’s “Nourlangie”, with the Ulster Orchestra, is repeatedly showcased on BBC radio 3. Scullthorpe is one of the most esteemed composers in Australia.

Ireland’s Frank Lyons and Australian Richard Charlton have written new works for Alan Banks. Lastly, he is a well known guitarist within the classical scene. That must count for something. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.29.99 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckethead task force?

Hi there! I'm trying to install a task force under the Guitarists Project. Would you like to join? --HexaChord (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pink floyd far

I have nominated Pink Floyd for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dynamic IP address... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.136.10 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I took a stab at composing an invitation template based on one of your messages you left for someone last year. It can be added by typing: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Outreach/Invitation|~~~~}}. Feel free to edit. As I'm looking through all of our project pages, a lot of updating and editing is needed. I'd like to clean out some old stuff we never used anyway (what is the "Buckethead task force"?) and update some things to modern wikicode. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. Now if I catch anyone " pickin' " on guitarist articles I can invite them to join. Cheers and have a nice day. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go Johnny Go

I ordered a few books about Chuck Berry. I want to see if I can make it a Featured Article. I'd like to see if we can really work on getting the article of influential guitarists up to a respectable standard. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the tip on the extra materials. I have two books so far, Brown Eyed Handsome Man by Bruce Pegg and Chuck Berry: The Autobiography. He apparently wrote this book himself without the use of a ghostwriter, which is quite some accomplishment. We of course have to be very selective about using material from the autobiography. I agree that the main focus should be on his music, with a much smaller personal life section. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look at the Page article. As long as WP exists, I suppose we will have this kind of thing happening. I've come to believe that guitarist articles are among the most contentious articles out there, because people feel so deeply about their musical heroes. It's nothing compared to editing religious or nationalistic articles, I suppose! I just created a stub on Bruce Gaitsch. I couldn't believe we didn't have an article on such a long-time and important session player and composer. We had an amusing exchange when I emailed asking for a photo, where he explained how the popular media doesn't care about session musicians. How right he is. Anyway, thanks for the help on Berry. Some of these old rock and blues players get neglected here. I'm going to take a trip to the library to see if they can dig up any old magazine and news articles. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1

Hi Anger22. Pink Floyd has been nominated for GA status. As you are a significant contributor you may wish to take part. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jealousy Curve

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jealousy Curve. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Anger22! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Max Norman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgot about creating that article? I travel extensively for work and my time on Wikipedia has been very sporadic. If I have time I will review the page at a later date. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Bon Scott

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bon Scott/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit count with regards to this article is insignificant as most of my edits were reversions of vandalism. I am not sure what input I could provide that would be helpful. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, friend

Nice to hear from you, and glad to hear you were able to get the "plumbing" cleared up without too much trouble. I (clearly) haven't been very active in the project - a lot going on in my world. I've been obsessing a bit lately about building a respectable home studio; I've splurged on some Mackie gear, experimented with a few different software solutions and finally settled on an app called Mixcraft. It's decent for my purposes and under $100. Nowhere near the bloatware that is Cakewalk or other major players. Take care! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney FAC

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, who is a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TommyBolin2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TommyBolin2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chriq (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge

Hello, Anger22! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request input

There is a content dispute at Pink Floyd; your input there would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Godspeed (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Godspeed (band) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godspeed (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]