User talk:Diamon

Welcome!

Hello, Diamon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max on the Rox

Well, neither of Kai Hahto's bands are death metal and either way they don't play the same genre, right? So he can't be (or he can't strictly be) a death metal musician. Wintersun is basically progressive with melodeath, and though I have never listened to Rotten Sound, it is listen on wiki as being grindcore. --Sn0wflake 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap... I was deep into a vandal patrol and in my haste to keep going, forgot to check the page History properly before reverting. Please do put your text back into the article. Really sorry for that. --Sn0wflake 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Motr voodoo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Motr voodoo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Max on the rox rox ii 120px.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Max on the rox rox ii 120px.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Max on the rox rhythmic songs from a mysterious red house 120px.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Max on the rox rhythmic songs from a mysterious red house 120px.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Max on the rox voodoo 120px.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Max on the rox voodoo 120px.jpg. 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) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperiumi.net

Hello. I noted that you has been adding this site through multiple articles in Wikipedia. I don't know if the site is reliable or not, but I'm not here because of that. In case you didn't know, we have a Manual of Style (MOS), and as our MOS says, any article should have only ten reviews in the template you've been adding the site, read this. Also, consider that the addition of the same site multiple times can be considered as spamming. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I'm going to remove the links where there are more than ten reviews. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The site can be trusted as reliable, read their English FAQ here. The ten review limit was new to me, sorry about that. Spamming has never been my intention. Imperiumi has been used as a review source many times in the past here in Wikipedia by other people. See for example album articles Incomparable and Deconstruction. --Diamon (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have concerns of the website being spammed, and I've seen several editors remove the reviews as well. What good is it to put up Finnish reviews on the English Wikipedia? They're not readable to a vast majority of the readers here, and it's not like you're adding any content or ideas from the review that put any perspective to it. Also, just because they were included in random articles doesn't really prove they're okay, it could just mean that no one bothered to remove them yet. (Those examples don't exactly strike me as "high traffic" articles. It's easy, for example, for users to add bad sources/info to obscure articles without getting caught. Not saying the website is especially bad, I'm just saying it's not really a valid argument for using it.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language of the article has much to do with this. Actually, if you would have checked the reviews I have been adding, you would have noticed that some of the reviews were translated to English by the author. Furthermore, if you look at the album article Seili of the Finnish singer Jenni Vartiainen, you can see that every one of those reviews in the template are Finnish reviews. It is hardly justified to call these articles obscure, unreliable, spam and written in the "wrong" language. That "Seili" album article has even been marked as a "good" article (by the Wikipedia staff I assume). I've already proved the notability of Imperiumi by linking to their FAQ page which consists of further information, and in the event that a certain review hasn't been translated to English and the reader can't read Finnish, they can at least clearly see the amount of points an album has received. --Diamon (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking the reviews, and so far, the one's I've been checking haven't had a translation. (Both of your examples above, Lightbulb Sun, Nil Recurring, etc have all been non-English.) So my concerns clearly apply to many of them you are using.
Spam isn't an indication of quality of source, it's more of a claim towards promoting a source. Technically, you could be accused of spamming a very reliable source, but typically, it's smaller, "up and coming" websites that have editors that come and try to promote their website by adding it to a ton of articles. Maybe this doesn't describe you, but that accusation tends to get thrown around when an editor adds a link to the same website over and over again to a bunch of articles without adding any actual content to an article.
I'm not saying non-English sources can't be used on the English Wikipedia. They can be used. I'm saying there's no point to add them when no content from the review is added, and the review cannot be read in English. For instance, in your example above, the article Seili uses the source "Helsingin Sanomat". But someone didn't just tag the review onto the article like you do, they also wrote a excerpt from the review to the article, so it has meaning to most readers who don't read the language.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, feel free to check back on your edits. Many different editors have undone your edits on similar grounds. I'm just the only one who's bothered to explain things to you. A number of others oppose what you're doing as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of translated reviews I added include Virgin Steele -albums Age of Consent and Noble Savage.
Nearly all review templates I have seen include a review by Allmusic, many times on its own. How is that not promoting one site? I personally never thought it is and adding Imperiumi-reviews shouldn't be treated as such either. If I started to add only Allmusic reviews, would you not consider that spamming? And for example the Lightbulb Sun article had only 5 reviews in the template, so my addition did not conflict with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and therefore your revert was unnecessary.
On many occasions when I added a review to an album, it was the only review in the article at that time. So surely there was new and relevant content added. Some examples include the new Steven Wilson DVD and the latest studio album by Dokken.
I have absolutely no connections to Imperiumi, I have just found the site to be trustworthy from years of experience and thought I'd share their views on some rock-albums. Certainly someone can appreciate that, especially on articles which had no professional reviews at all. But it's too bad that some people here are so strict on what kind of new information they will accept, so it seems that I will have to stop contributing this kind of information to Wikipedia. --Diamon (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT#Non-English reviews, "English-language reviews are preferred, as languages other than English are not understood by a large number of readers. However, if few reviews exist, reviews in languages other than English may be included, especially if the language is especially relevant to the album in question.". I've removed your addition of reviews to Devin Townsend articles with several English reviews already existing (and one where you added an 11th review), since the language these reviews are in is not relevant to the artist (and thus his albums), and these articles already have several reviews (thus not fulfilling "if few reviews exist"). These reviews would probably be a better fit on the Finnish Wikipedia than on the English Wikipedia. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed only my additions of Imperiumi-reviews, but left the ones added by other people? --Diamon (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your recent edits to Devin Townsend articles adding this review site. There may be other Devin Townsend articles (or other articles in general) with this review site listed, I haven't bothered to check. If you see other articles with this review site listed when it doesn't qualify to be listed, please feel free to remove them. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Motr rhythmic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Motr rhythmic.jpg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Motr rox ii.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Motr rox ii.jpg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2014 (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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Max on the Rox for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Max on the Rox 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/Max on the Rox 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.

Lennart97 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]