User talk:Renamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205/Archive

Little context in Redacted (film)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Redacted (film), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Redacted (film) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Redacted (film), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Matériel blanc

I've nominated Matériel blanc, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Matériel blanc satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matériel blanc and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Matériel blanc during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

... and the consensus was to delete the article. Please don't create it again (at least for a few months :) ). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The page was deleted per G4 of the speedy deletion criteria, which reads "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." However, I looked at the link you provided and considering that the text of the article is basically a direct translation, it really is a copyright violation and should not be restored. However, I think the film may be near enough to being released that it could have its own article, as long as the copyright violation is cleared up. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sole and the skyrider band.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sole and the skyrider band.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noah23

The article Noah23 has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter Sajitarius

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jupiter Sajitarius, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.discogs.com/Noah23-Jupiter-Sajitarius/release/1461499.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jupiter Sajitarius

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jupiter Sajitarius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Jupiter Sajitarius

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Jupiter Sajitarius, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Jupiter sajitarius.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Jupiter sajitarius.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hello Wetdogmeat. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Noah23, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 07:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Noah23

Wetdogmeat, it appears to me that Noah23 and all the pages associated with him may not meet Wikipedia standards of inclusion. I know you've put a lot of work into this lately and I'm letting you know that there is a chance that all this material will be removed and that you will be unable to create it. I'm going to bring this discussion up at the administrator's notice board/incidents so we can have a discussion, but before I do that maybe you can just solve this now and explain why Noah23 is notable. Thanks you N^oformation ^Talk 07:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Taste of Rain... Why Kneel?

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Taste of Rain... Why Kneel?, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.soundunwound.com/music/deep-puddle-dynamics/7142.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi there, I notice that you copied content from Deep Puddle Dynamics to The Taste of Rain... Why Kneel?. This indirectly caused the above copyright warning as it appeared to the bot that you were copying from another website which in fact is a mirror of the Deep Puddle Dynamics article. This is not a problem. However, it's really important that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s) of the material in the original article, to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. I've added a note to the talkpages to this end, but in future, the easiest way to do this is when you create the new article, state in the edit summary that you have copied from another article, and provide a link to the article. For example, this time, you could have said "new article, content copied from Deep Puddle Dynamics" or, "splitting material from Deep Puddle Dynamics", or something like that. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --BelovedFreak 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. The problem is not lack of citations, the problem is total lack of notability, one of our most important content policies. → ROUX ₪ 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. You need to engage in the discussion on the talkpage, please. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold text

Proposed deletion of Terminal Illness (album)

The article Terminal Illness (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sources suggesting notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —EncMstr (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noah23

The article Noah23 has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cytoplasm Pixel

Hello, Wetdogmeat, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Cytoplasm Pixel, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neophyte Phenotype

Hello, Wetdogmeat, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Neophyte Phenotype, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cytoplasm Pixel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cytoplasm Pixel 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/Cytoplasm Pixel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Neophyte Phenotype for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neophyte Phenotype 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/Neophyte Phenotype until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

Hi. You ignored the last time I posted here. You ignored me posting on the talkpage of the article.

You need to start paying attention. Please read Wikipedia's policy on notability. That album is simply not notable. Stop restoring the article. Do you understand what I am saying? → ROUX ₪ 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment re: suggested merge of CRUNK 23 to Noah23

See--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noah23

If you have any comments on the proposed merge, please comment there. If you think that CRUNK23 should continue as a separate article, then please provide any additional evidence you can to support notability (web links are best, but if you know print-only sources, they are good, too). Otherwise, I think it will get sent to AfD and be merged (at best) or straight deleted (at worst). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What did you think about the deletion notice you received?

Hi Wetdogmeat,

In November you received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions:

1. Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
2. If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
3. What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchukwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ghettosocks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ghettosocks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Noah23. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --124.85.229.16 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Guante

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Guante, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.guante.info/p/bio-press-contact.html. As a copyright violation, Guante appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Guante has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Guante and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Guante with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Guante.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. 118.6.203.185 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dude, I'm not joking. Stop right now. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. My apologies. I don't know what this anonymous IP-address's problem is. I was just considering requesting page protection. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a matter of life and death, of BLP violations. There is no urgency, and other avenues should be explored. Not protection--that just takes the IP out of the equation. Further talk at the talk page is a start; perhaps a note somewhere on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page. And don't worry, I have no qualms about blocking that IP editor. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Pedestrian (rapper). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 118.8.54.79 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Noah23

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Noah23, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://noah23.tumblr.com/bio, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Noah23 and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Noah23, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Noah23 with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Noah23. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Noah23 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! 118.6.253.201 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Talk:Noah23/Temp

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Talk:Noah23/Temp. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Noah23. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Noah23 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 114.145.112.192 (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you a troll or an idiot or both? Wetdogmeat (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm an idiot? 118.8.54.79 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're definitely a troll and probably also an idiot, yes. You're an IP-editor who has fixated on 'policing' my edits of pages whose subjects you obviously know nothing about. You're removing correct info, adding incorrect info, replacing proper English grammar with bad grammar, violating clear style guidelines, shuffling things around so they don't make any sense, etc, etc, etc. So, yes, you're a troll. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the IPs that have been harassing you are logged-out edits of the blocked user User:Cvlwr, and you may revert them as such and seek administrator attention whenever necessary. Chubbles (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. How do I go about seeking admin attention if needs be? Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Qwazaar

Hello, Wetdogmeat. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Qwazaar, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

IP harrasment

I've blocked IP 114.165.18.59 for obvious block evasion by Cvlwr. If they pop up on another IP let me know. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Twenties Hungry: The Unbound Anthems of Yesteryear

Hi, I see you've had a lot of hassle lately from the activity above, so instead of just slapping a deletion tag on Twenties Hungry: The Unbound Anthems of Yesteryear, I'd just like to ask if you would offer any clarification as to how the ep meets the notability requirements of WP:NALBUM, as all the references listed are user-published content on sites like mrhauer and camuz which are blogs written by individuals. The notability guideline requires significant coverage under reliable independent sources, which are usually interpreted as being published sources written by professional journalists under editorial control. My suggestion is that you merge the content into Penny and leave this title as a redirect to Penny. I can help you with that process if you like, just leave a note below. Don't be discouraged by the number of notices posted to you in a short space of time - but it is a good idea to spend a while reading through what Wikipedia policy is on what is an acceptable subject and content for an article, this will save you the irritation of having people constantly putting your work up for deletion. It's also good to work on existing articles that need developing/improving more than creating new ones, this will help you get a feel for what the community regards as good content for the encyclopedia. Personally I have edited over 100 times as many articles as I have created. There are thousands to choose from! Keep at it Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you direct me to the guideline that states that blogs don't qualify as indepedent sources? Thanks. It would seem to severely limit the eligibility of most underground hip hop content for inclusion, particularly that released in recent years, since blog coverage is how these artists have largely come to be publicised. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:USERGENERATED. Sources don't have to be published online - if you have (either your own or a library copy) a printed music magazine with an article about an album, that would be ok for establishing notability as long as you put in all the publishing information in the cite template. Well over 100 pages are created every day on WP and we have to find a way of making a distinction somewhere on the scale between Queen (band) and an X-factor audition reject (or WP:MYSPACEBAND); of course there is a huge grey area in between so as far as possible each case is treated individually, and usually with any kind of new article WP:GNG is the main policy new page patrollers keep at the front of their minds. It may not always appear fair at first, but merging content about albums which haven't attracted any press coverage onto the notable artist's main article is a good way for the content to be available on Wikipedia without giving it weight it may not deserve. To clarify - the guideline doesn't say you cannot use blog-based sites as a supplementary reference, just that on their own they're not enough to demonstrate notability or validate an article. Thanks for the question by the way, it's always good to re-read the policy I'm using! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 01:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The LOX

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give The LOX a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. STATic message me! 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah, I know about the 'Move' button. I've followed these merger instructions where I've wanted to move a page because of the incorrect formatting of its title and a redirect already exists from the correct formatting. I've done it to a few pages. Even reading those instructions again now, they seem to apply to exactly what I was trying to achieve. The instructions talk about 'clarifying attribution' too. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe you are right take it to WP:RM and discuss these moves before making them as they are controversial, such as the mistake that was Tech Nine. All pages must be moved via the 'Move' tab and if a redirect already exists you discuss the move as all history must be retained during the moves. STATic message me! 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm right, I'm just explaining why I did it that way. Those instructions seem extremely misleading to me; maybe a note should be attached to them stating what they're actually for, because that's still not clear to me - it talks about "source and destination pages" and cutting and pasting all of the content from one to the other, leaving 'merged-to' and 'merged-from' notes in the edit summaries to clarify attribution, and says explicitly to not ask for a history merge. Wetdogmeat (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

R.A. the Rugged Man

I am an OTRS agent, which means I field issues affecting Wikipedia articles which are sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you can appreciate that those conversation are confidential, and I cannot reveal details without permission.

I can say that the actions taken on the article R.A. the Rugged Man were not undertaken lightly or carelessly.

The edits did remove some material which may well belong in the article. As you know, we always like to have material supported by references. While this desire is not always met, we are more rigorous about following it in the case of BLPs. Another OTRS agent removed material that was not adequately sourced. I added a list of sources to the talk page, and it may now be time to carefully add back some of the removed material, if it can be supported by references.

I do not plan on making any material additions, as I want to leave that to editors like you who know the subject material better. Sorry it looked like your toes were being stepped on, but I assure you it wasn't without reason.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you may have me mixed up with User:JesseRafe, as I wasn't complaining about the removal of the material. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I sent him a message, because of his concern. then I looked at the list of contributors, and saw you were active, and wanted to give you a heads up. Sorry if the tone wasn't quite right I was lazy and just used the same text.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay, cheers. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Orko

Congrats. on getting the Orko article up. I tried to add one two times and they were deleted both times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squirelewis (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to rely on NMS coverage to bulk up the notability a bit. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

I just saw the history of what happened at Tech N9ne. I hope you now know that copy/paste moves are a big no-no and should not be repeated - just putting this here to be clear about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was following these instructions, which I've been told are not the ones to follow (though in that case I'm unsure what their actual purpose is). Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are for mergers, not renames.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on deadmaus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech N9ne

I think this should be revisited. Moving it to Tech Nine was a mistake. i actually am affliated with Strange Music (I street team with one of their Tech Squads) clearly I can provide some insight as to why this should be switched back. 2BARQUACK.COM (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved back, along with Sunn O))). May also consider moving Gza and Rza back, but that's a different MOS:TM matter. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll let Tech N9ne go back because it is essentially the same case as Deadmau5, but Sunn O))) and RZA & GZA are not. If you want to have them moved back you will have to argue your case. You can't piggyback on one RM for a bunch of 'family resemblance' cases. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Keynote Speaker

"Keynote Speaker" is the correct title of that album we go by album covers and "the" is not on the cover. Koala15 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is on the cover. Put your glasses on and look again. (And we don't go by album covers, by the way, we go by sources.) Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"the" is not on the album cover. Koala15 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're visually impaired. The word "The" is clearly on the cover. Did you google it? It is inside the letter K. And, again, we do not go by album covers, we go by sources. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My bad, i am wrong i never zoomed in on it ill change it back. Koala15 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tray Deee

Your recent editing history at 2014 in hip hop music shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 06:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit the brazen hypocrisy: [1], [2], [3]. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think I told you to take it to the talk page? You'd already reverted me twice at that point. I certainly didn't think you'd be so lacking in self-awareness that you'd reach your revert limit before me and then issue me a warning about breaking the rule. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I see two reverts on my side and three on yours. How is [4] a revert, I updated one thing and removed a event that had not been added today, that I had noticed was not backed by a reliable verifiable source. Per WP:BRD, you should have begun discussing after I made my first revert, since you had already reverted. You really do not understand WP:V do you? If the Twitter is not verified then how do we know it is his? How are we supposed to know it is not fan-made and most importantly how is an artist supposed to be able to tweet if they are in prison? Have you ever even thought of that. Again if the event was so significant a reliable third party source would have referenced or published the tweet. STATic message me! 07:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's right there in the template you posted: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I posted the info, you removed it, and that is your first revert. On the issue itself - WP:FACEBOOK states: "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter message." It does not state that only Verified Accounts can be used as primary sources. If it did, that would be a double-standard, as it states no such thing for Facebook or MySpace (as the 'authentication' system offered by Facebook is not open to application by users, and I presume no such system exists for MySpace either). Instead, it states that the source can be used "if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject" and tells us to "Be wary of fakes"; it then links to WP:SPS, where the relevant policy is WP:TWITTER. There are five criteria listed here. #5 is relevant only to the use of the source in the Tray Deee article itself (and the article is not based primarily on such sources). The source easily meets criteria #1, 2 & 3. #4 is the sticking point: reasonable doubt. That is the criterion, not Twitter Verification. We are told to consider Verification, and when we do, we would have to conclude that Tray Deee was, at the height of his popularity twelve years ago, at best a fringe mainstream artist, and that after nine years in prison he is well and truly underground again, and therefore not the type of artist we would expect with any certainty to have Verified his Twitter account. Now, what other basis is there for reasonable doubt? Does the account look like a joke, like parody, satire or character assassination? Are there provocative statements being made? Is he trolling other users? Is he starting beef with other rappers, like the fake Canibus account did with Slaughterhouse? Is Tray Deee someone who would likely be imitated on Twitter? No, no, no, no, and no. What is the content of the feed? Innocuous interactions with friends, family, colleagues and fans, all of whom respond in such a way as to suggest the account is genuine; talk of post-release plans to release a compilation mixtape and album entitled Long Beach State of Mind Vol. 1 & 2 (some tracks from which have already been released); and talk of the debut solo album to be released sometime later next year (which is corroborated by Nat Powers on his own account). There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the account. That is, reasonable doubt, remember, not radical Cartesian skepticism. Anyone can register any URL they want too, but there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of official websites. The same application of reason and common sense applies to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

True Detective

You ignored consensus on the issue of primary topic. Thanks for creating a mess. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks to you for assuming good faith. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits have been mentioned here at WP:RMTR. Your argument that True Detective (TV series) is the primary topic appears to have been rejected in the move discussion at Talk:True Detective (TV series)#Requested move which closed on March 5. Possibly you were unaware of this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, sorry, I should've checked. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)