User talk:Djc wi/Talk Archive 2

Jasmine Sagginario

Knock Knock The song is credited as JASMINE SAGGINARIO NOT JASMINE! Even the single cover says "Jasmine Sagginario - Knock Knock." I am very sad that you took away all my hard work on her next singles, and they did have resources! I ADDED THEM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

um . . . excuses me????

Ok, listen. The song Knock Knock is by JASMINE SAGGINARIO NOT JASMINE! JUST LOOK ON ITUNES!!!!!! Gosh, do some research or something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW THEY CALL HER JASMINE BUT HER NEW SONG SHE IS CREDITED AS JASMINE SAGGINARIO! IT IS ON ITUNES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW THAT ALL THOSE SITES YOU GAVE ME CALL HER JASMINE, BUT IN HER SONG KNOCK KNOCK SHE IS CREDITED AS JASMINE SAGGINARIO! JUST LOOK ON ITUNES OR AT THE SINGLE COVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understandm but that is only for her first album! Her new songs credit her as Jasmine Sagginario. Knock Knock and Boy Crazy both do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that she may be called Jasmine, but for Knock Knock she is called Jasmine Sagginario, so please just leave me alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanerusso (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer)

Please stop deleting Post NBT information. This is disruptive editing. I would be happy to work with you on editing correct UNBIASED information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminepedia (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using the talk page. The "Post N.B.T." information was deleted because it was completely unreferenced and looked unprofessional. Therefore, mine was not the disruptive editing. Whoever put it there in the first place was at fault. --Djc wi (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please start using the talk page DJC and deleting my comments and references.--Jasminepedia (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and look at the talk page. I am the only one who is considerate enough to use it. You have yet to use it like you're supposed to. You keep removing factual information, and appropriate tags. You are disruptive. STOP IT!! --Djc wi (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used the talk pages you requested. You are reporting disruptive warnings, and sock puppetry submissions which I will gladly resolve with who is needed. I am requesting you stop deleting my references, and my factual information. Jasmine now uses her name as an artist, and it's on her releases? Why don't you simply edit your article to show that? --Jasminepedia (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the talk page I request is located here. Click on the link or go to the article and click on "Discussion" in the top left corner. That's the discussion page that you need to use. --Djc wi (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer) name dispute

Hi there.

I'm posting this message to both Jasminepedia (talk · contribs) and Djc wi (talk · contribs).

Both of you, please stop changing information about the name of the singer until there is consensus to do so on the talk page of the article.

This is a dispute - at the moment, seemingly, between the two of you. Whilst it is being discussed, do not change the article, even if it is the "wrong version".

If you cannot agree, then ask for a third opinion, or use other suggestions shown in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - and please, do read that link.

Please - stay calm, and work towards a consensus.

If the page continues to be disputed, then it may be protected from editing, and/or other actions may be taken (including blocks) to prevent disruption to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention, I hope you will both help to resolve this peacefully. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Djc_wii, the SPI is not going to help here, as a checkuser will not connect a user account to an IP address. If the user needed to be blocked (for disruptive editing), then that could be dealt with via normal admin action. I appreciate what you've said, about your talk page being 'vandalised', however - personally, at this stage, I do not think any blocking actions would be helpful. I think the matter needs to be resolved on the article talk page.

However...if that does not happen, then certainly other actions can be taken. So - can you please give discussion a try? If the article gets changed again, or if you get trouble (personal attack, or vandalism on your page), please give me a shout on my own talk page. Thanks for your understanding. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I just have a few things to say. First, the SPI is separate from the article. I truly think that Jasminepedia is using her regular account and an IP account. Regardless, secondly, I won't edit the article (regarding Jasmine's name), but what if Jasminepedia does? --Djc wi (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

I agree that it is a clear case of someone logging out and editing; however, I do not think that any action about that - at this time - will be helpful in sorting the matter out.

If anyone changes the info about the name on the article, before there is consensus, then I'll try to take appropriate action - probably protecting the page (preventing any editing) while the dispute is resolved, or if necessary warning/blocking a user. I'll do my best to monitor it, but please let me know if you see something.

Obviously, we do not want to protect the article - this is the "Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" - which is why I've stepped in here to see if we can resolve this peacefully through discussion.

I'll also see if I can get others to contribute to the discussion (with some appropriate neutral posting on a related project talk page). Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  21:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done that now - [1] [2]. Often, getting comments from some other users can help resolve things like this. So please give it several days, and if there is a clear consensus there will be no problem in editing the article to sort out the name - and, if it is changed in future, we can revert and refer back to consensus. Hope this makes sense. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some sort of tag that can be placed at the top of the article to warn people not to edit it, regarding the name, until a consensus is reached? --Djc wi (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so; we try to avoid 'showing the pipework' on articles (ie, the internal processes of Wikipedia). It'll be fine; it's likely any such change would be quickly reverted, and if it becomes a problem, the article will just get protected for a few days. The key thing to remember is, that Wikipedia will be around for a very long time - so, if something is 'wrong' for a few days, it really doesn't matter much. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting

Yes it's true there is the 'European' style of DD-MM-YYYY, but as the article is about an American, I believe the usual presumption is that the article will use the US style of MM-DD-YYYY.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the archiving hint. I don't use my Talk page a lot, so I don't really notice it. I just go the bottom where the new material invariably will be located. I'll look into it sometime. Thanks again.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol

Hi Djc wi. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion A1 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. There is sufficient information in this case to identify the subject. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. It appears that you forgot to provide a rationale for deleting the How do they put soft centers inside chocolate candies article. Cind.amuse 07:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer) Month of birth

• Jasmine (American singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Re. {{Jasmine Sagginario (born September}} (edits changing it both ways)

This is just a quick, friendly note to 3 people who've recently edited that specific portion - Djc wi, Michael Bednarek and Cindamuse

That article has, recently, been problematic - bordering on edit-war. (Sorry, some of you will already realise that - but I'm just being neutral in commenting here),

Therefore, please exercise great caution in editing and reverting - and if there are any problems at all, please discuss them on Talk:Jasmine (American singer) - especially before repeating edits.

I remain neutral and uninvolved; I'm just trying to avoid trouble - particularly, trying to avoid a need to 'protect' the article from editing.

Thank you for your understanding, all the best,  Chzz  ►  07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional short comment to Djc wi: Of course, due to our prior conversation, I already know you are aware of the background here; I just wanted to be fair in notifying all 3 parties about this specific edit / potential problem. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• (Placing my reply on the talk page of three editors) A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article (between these three editors). An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working together with the third new editor to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a positive experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of all editors involved. Thanks again, Cind.amuse 08:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I quite agree - that's great. Just trying to keep things that way, because recently it did come a bit close to needing other action. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Pfeiffer‎

Hi DJ - I just figured that I'd mention here that I removed your speedy template on Chris Pfeiffer‎ because it looked to me like the article contains a credible claim for the notability. Kevin (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me know. The reason I requested a speedy was because it's unreferenced. There is one reference, but it links nowhere except back to the article. --Djc wi (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The criteria that have to be met for an A7 speedy don't include references. Articles about living people that are unreferenced can be deleted under blpprod. References also do not have to be linked directly to or even accessible online at all to be valid - references are okay even if they are only accessible in an offline library or bookstore. I also suspect googling around about him that he could meet the notability standards via the level of media coverage he has garnered (WP:Athlete doesn't have specific standards for stunt bikers.) However, looking more closely at it there is a significant problem - it's a copyright vio. I don't have the desire/energy to rewrite the article in to a keepable state currently, so I'll tag it for speedy deletion as such. Kevin (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Jasmine (American singer)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Jasmine (American singer), 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: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which 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) 06:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Djc wi don't worry about the above; it's really just a technicality in this specific case. See Talk:Jasmine_(American_singer)#Contested_deletion. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not worried. I honestly just forgot about the rule because a speedy seemed so ridiculous. Any deletion, really, but especially a speedy. --Djc wi (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood; no worries.  Chzz  ►  06:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Curt Fortin

Hello Djc wi. I am just letting you know that I deleted Curt Fortin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. nancy 09:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: De dochter van quy hoa

Hello Djc wi. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on De dochter van quy hoa to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. nancy 09:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: John Sherrit (musician)

Hello Djc wi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Sherrit (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the deletion is not uncontroversial, as other editors (not the article creator) have contested the deletion on the article's talk page. Please try WP:AFD if you still feel the article should be deleted. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of Shishir Hathwar

Hi there, just to let you know I removed your proposed deletion tag from the article as I have added sources and will improve the article even more. He is quite known, a quick Google search proves this. Feel free to help out. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I only ask that if you are willing to improve this article, please do it correctly. I have placed a tag on the article explaining what is wrong with it at the current moment. Also, I will be watching the article. If it doesn't get improved to standards like you say you will do, actions will result. --Djc wi (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't just tag articles all the time. They can always be improved. You could be damaging potential content. I saw your tag, I'm going to remove it now. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags exist to notify interested people that the article needs to improved. An interested person is the author, a major contributor, or someone else who has knowledge of the article's subject. Tags are used by uninterested people (people who have little to no knowledge of the subject, or at least not enough to contribute intelligently). As it pertains to this article, I am an uninterested person, because I did not even know about the existence of this person until you created the article. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to tag than to contribute. --Djc wi (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. Just to let you know, I didn't create the article. I found it on the new pages and decided to help improve it as the author as far as I can tell is quite new to Wikipedia. My point is that it didn't make me an "uninterested person" as you call it immediately just because I had never heard of him, and look at the quality of the article now, compared to before. I've added a category, hopefully try and get and image up soon. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Action Dance of Tacoma

Gosh, you were quick to CSD Action Dance of Tacoma, weren't you? The article had been up for less than two minutes, was written by a newbie and contained no attacks etc. I really think that perhaps it deserved another 30 minutes' watching to see if something developed from it. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If an author is still working on a page, then {{In creation}} or {{In use}} must be at the top of the page. Notify the author of this. If he/she puts one of those two tags up, I'll remove the speedy temporarily until the article is finished. --Djc wi (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Where in the guidelines does it say that those templates must be present? And where does it says that newbies would know this? Sure, my gut feeling is that the thing would be CSD'd but the sheer speed of your action (excuse the sort-of pun) just seems a little off-putting. I note that you did put the uw template up about using the sandbox etc, which is A Good Thing, but Wikipedia is timeless and another few minutes would have done no harm. It didn't appear to be libellous, an attack page or vandalism. Just my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How else are people supposed to know that the article isn't finished? There are lots of people that create an article with one edit and then leave it. How else was I supposed to know that the author wasn't actively working on it? The reason the speedy came quickly (no pun intended) was because I was patrolling new pages, which any autoconfirmed user can do at Special:NewPages. It's a place where Wikipedians can check to see if new pages need to be deleted. Action Dance of Tacoma looked like an online flyer. So I nominated it under CSD G11. And about the newbie thing, they're supposed to read the guidelines before editing. Granted, I did react a little harshly, but I did not check the author's contributions before nominating because he/she had a talk page (which indicated previous editing). --Djc wi (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that I know my way around the workings of Wikipedia. Being an autoconfirmed user is no big deal.

• The short answer to your opening query - "How else are people supposed to know" - is that no article is ever finished.
• Sure, there are plenty of SPA editors and even single-edit editors but if you CSD that quickly then you will never know if they intended to edit further or not. You have bitten them.
• Regarding guidelines, well, there are all sorts of things people are supposed to do and do not, whether new users or otherwise. As with my comment about showing me where it says someone must use the templates, please can you show me where it says people must read the guidelines etc.
• Oddly enough, although in this case the editor has been absolutely hammered with CSDs today, having made previous edits does not in fact mean that the person has any experience.

Like I said, I think that the article would have been deleted anyway. But did it have to be initiated by you, at that time? The answer to that question is "no". Someone else would have picked up on it. Patrolling from the back of the new pages queue, as it says at the top of that page, is arguably more useful. I'm not intending to criticise you but rather hoping to show you another perspective. There was no need for a hair-trigger response on this occasion & you could in fact be warned for reacting as you did (I'm not warning you!).

I've left a note on the ed's page in an attempt to improve her experience here. Probably too late now, but it is worth a try. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A few points. First, when I say "finished," I mean with initial creation. Secondly, this was a case of single-edit creation as you'll notice that the author never contested deletion. Yes, I do have a bad habit of patrolling from the first page, but as I understand it, patrolling from the backlog is not a requirement, but rather a suggestion. The only requirements are not using CSD A1 or CSD A3 minutes after creation. And yes, I should have checked the author's contribs first. Generally, I do that if I notice an absence of a talk page (at which point I insert a {{New user article}} tag), but after this, I should probably do it in all cases.

Can I add, if I may, that it's perfectly fine to add a speedy tag if whoever if tagging it deems it necessary. However, it may be removed or converted if it isn't the correct tag. Sometimes it is good to lay off it though, Djc wi, just look at the quality of Shishir Hathwar now. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, out of curiosity, you keep questioning me about my speed. What about yours? You responded to my nomination within 2 minutes as well. What prompted this haste? --Djc wi (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you thought that the quick CSD may have discouraged further edits? In other words, your action could have been self-fulfilling. You are correct that it is not a requirement to patrol from the back, nor did I say that it was such. You appear not to be reading what I say, let alone what the guidelines say regarding templates, reading up on stuff before editing etc. No worries, as we're all learning, all the time. Since an article is never finished, as you seem to acknowledge, I'm not sure how you can define when "initial creation" is finished: the only logical determinator would be after the first edit, when the page then exists in mainspace ... but this is clearly an unreasonable restriction.

As for my speed, well, in my opinion you had possibly bitten a newbie. A delay in bringing this to your attention might cause you to bite more of them, especially if you are patrolling - that's why I responded here so quickly. It is a valid action, which yours probably was not. Just slow down a bit would be my advice. Take it or leave it. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the article now, and really there's nothing wrong with him tagging it. There's plenty of tutorials around, and if the page gets deleted, well... They can learn from their mistakes and try creating a few new articles, or try the same one again, and place a maintenance tag at the top or such... SilverSoul91911 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not said that it should not be tagged. I was querying the speed at which the tagging was done and, as an aside, the apparent lack of interest in offering some guidance to a newbie other than the standard template. BTW, I've just fixed up the Hathwar article - some glaring WP:MOS issues there, but I also took the liberty (which is generally contrary to policy, but common for new articles) of templatising the citations. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The exact same thing I argued with him earlier haha. I understand what you mean but there's not really anyway of stopping it is there? If the article is deleted then, oh well. Rewrite it again. P.S thanks. There was probably some grammar problems because as far as I can tell, a person from India (doesn't speak English natively) wrote it. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Newbies often will not rewrite their contribution again. They just give up, which is the last thing we want to happen unless they are being obviously disruptive. Djc wi will learn from this, I hope. Most of us do. In fact, this thread is a classic example of the alternative to templatising: I could have just issued the standard templatised user warning for biting the newbies, but who would really gain anything from that?

Re: Hathwar, the problems were of style rather than grammar: use last names, references outside punctuation, lower case in section headings etc. The manual of style is well worth reading, although it is huge and so going through it in small chunks is probably the best approach! - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Felix Somary

You were again very quick with the CSD, in this case reinstating it after I removed the tag at Felix somary. For your info, CSD A7 is not about notability but importance, and a quick Google search (as I suggested in my tag removal) suggests that there may be something worthwhile here. If you want to pursue the matter then you need to PROD it or take it to AfD. I wouldn't bother doing a PROD because I will just remove the thing while I work on the article, so it is AfD or nothing.

This is another example of a hair-trigger, I'm afraid. The article subject may indeed not be notable but that is yet to be proven. Give people a chance, please. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not reinstate a speedy deletion. I never do unless it is removed by the author. After you removed the speedy, I tagged it with a PROD, which is much different from speedy deletions. I understand that the CSD requires significance and not notability. But again, PROD is different. But it doesn't matter now since removed PRODs cannot be replaced. Inclusion, as you know, requires notability. Since you seem to think I am being too quick, what amount of time would you deem appropriate before nominating for AfD? --Djc wi (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies about the reinstatement issue. I wouldn't even bother with AfD. The guy is clearly notable and exists on German WP - three experienced editors have weighed in on the thing now, including myself. You waited about 15 minutes on this occasion but clearly did no research before tagging, which I think is similar to an incident mentioned previously on your TP above by someone else. CSD or PRODing without doing even a basic Google search seems to be a bit bizarre to me but if that is the way you work then we'll just have to hope that there are plenty of people watching what you tag. I am not (could not, in fact, since you are tagging at such a rate). - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold off on the AfD, but please improve the references. If not improved, the article will not be notable. --Djc wi (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, notability had actually been proven even before you tagged it for that. There were several citations & numerous publications listed; one of the citations was a modern-day assessment that he was one of the greatest currency experts of his time. What's the issue here? - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:PEOPLE does Felix Somary meet? --Djc wi (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is People and there is also the general notability guideline. As is clear from the Somary article (which also exists on German WP), he had many books published, has been talked about in various academic works, and was a senior advisor to the Allies in WW2. Sure, he is no Milton Friednman or Schumpeter, nor even a Patrick Lynch, but the information is out there and obtainable from a basic Google search. There may be much more, if only I could read German. The single citation I quoted above - "one of the greatest currency experts ..." is a bit of a giveaway regarding probable notability.

You clearly were not having a good day on the 11th. Happens to us all from time to time (and more frequently than most, in my case). Don't worry about it but try to remember that there is more to new page patrolling than hitting a delete option. It is possible to be a constructive NPP rather than a negative one. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Minora

Just to let you know Mouse Nightshirt is opposing the speedy deletion on the grounds listed at the article's discussion page.He let me know as I replaced the removed template. Vrenator (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Prepositional phrases as modifiers

Hello Djc wi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Prepositional phrases as modifiers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is somewhat maningful bu I am retagging as an A10. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Baseball Watcher 01:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Polarsets

Hello Djc wi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Polarsets, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

COI

Hello. I reverted your undos at Eastern Shadows. While WP:COI states that editors are encouraged to avoid COI editing, they are still allowed to edit. Simply having a COI is no reason to revert. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not know this. Thanks for pointing that out. --Djc wi (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. However, I encourage you to check the article for neutrality whenever you see such edits. Happy editing! Zakhalesh (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stigmata (Russian band)

Hello Djc wi,

I found something on google search about the 2007's Road To Your Hearts Tour but I don't know if it is enough. It isn't much and it's all on Russian language. Hope it helps a little bit. Greetings Goroth (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. All references/sources must be in English. --Djc wi (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not true. Please read Wikipedia:CITE#Non-English_sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay but this are the all results I get from Google. Goroth (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC) -> Btw: I found a photo session of this tour. The links are on russian but you can see the english city names in the URL link. Look here!

I would search from Google.com for more results. The website may be regarded as trivial by administrators, thus not passing criteria. Keep looking. --Djc wi (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at the article's talk page. --Djc wi (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jonnie and Brookie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jonnie and Brookie.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) 22:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

All the best with your work in progress Abandon Kansas (EP) article I have taken the liberty of a minor tweak which I hope you will find constructive, all the best with it! User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 01:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your contribution of a tweak. It's quite a relief from initial contributions by others in the past, which usually consisted of speedy deletions. --Djc wi (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome, although I am sure that CSD tag would accompany the comment use your sandbox first, I think good faith demands latitude where clarity of intention and good conduct combine. TTFN User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 01:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs)