Jump to content

User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Rollback request

Your rollback request has been accepted. You will now see the rollback link appear next to edits which can be rolled back. As is advised to all users of this tool, please remember that it is only for the reversion of blatant and obvious vandalism. Keep up the good work and happy vandalfighting! Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Knut (polar bear)

why did you revert to change made to KNut (ice bear) on feb 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.224.24 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a featured article. You can't make a major change like that unless you cite valid sources and achieve a consensus on the Talk page. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of posted information on Phoenix subject...

Paul,

My name is Todd. You removed info I placed on the Phoenix page regarding a song. You said it was in affect, a way of either advertising, linking or gaining search engine ranking. Im sorry you feel that way, but your wrong. While that may be your opinion, that was not my intention. I have not posted to Wikipedia before. I only did it because I saw something that was relevant, quite relevant to the page provided on the subject. It would seem that any song posted on that page or any page under any subject for that matter, is in affect a form of promoting whatever source it's based on, wouldn't you agree? You deleted my post based on feeling or fact? I thought I was doing something to help. If Im doing it wrong, that's one thing, then tell me exactly what I should do to do it right. But if this decision to wipe away the info I took the time out of my day to register and post for, was based on something other than fact, then that really discourages me to continue donating my time any further so that it could just go to waste. I didn't see a point in posting information based on a source without allowing the reader to know what the source was, hence providing a link to it. Had I not provided the link, would it have been left to stay? But before I even ask anymore questions on that topic, can you understand how frustrating this can be for people trying to add information to Wikipedia? I mean, if Ive got to go through a court case for every link I want to post to a source for information, it becomes a bit tedious.

Im the student, your the teacher. You tell me what Im doing wrong and how I should go about doing it right. Please be specific. And by that I mean, don't ask me to read an encyclopedia of instructions and rules to get informed if you know the answer and can tell me in a short paragraph. After all, you're the one who deleted my posted information, so you should know better than anyone else. And I would like to ask that you reply directly to my email address so that I don't have to jump through any more hoops to figure this out. Thank you. Todd. theonlymusician@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MusicSource2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Todd. I truly did not mean to make your first experience of editing Wikipedia one of such frustration, and the standard warning template that I put on your talk page is something that we use here to warn spammers not to use Wikipedia to promote their websites, so that was a rather cold way for me to welcome you here! My apologies.
No, I did not remove your link because of my own "feeling". You added it to a disambiguation page, the purpose of which is to guide readers to articles that already exist on Wikipedia. What you were adding—a 9/11 memorial song by Dan Pinto, "Flight of the Phoenix"—does not already exist in an article here, so you were not adding it to the correct page according to our guidelines. I'm not sure what the best article would be... the September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services article might be relevant although I suspect the editors there would also remove it unless the song has been written about extensively elsewhere. Perhaps my best advice would be to write an article about Dan Pinto and mention the song there. Let me know if I can be of any help. You will have to use references to demonstrate that Pinto is notable enough for Wikipedia.
Sorry for the cold welcome previously. I will copy this reponse to your talk page so that you can't miss it. I don't use email; that's nothing personal. Best, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul,
I guess I'll just answer you here if thats OK... I had no idea that I was posting in the wrong place. I did some checking and Dan Pinto seems to be fairly notible. I know a bit about music, but Im not sure what the criteria would be for that. But Ive seen articles and links on Wiki on artists that don't seem to have half the credentials of Mr. Pinto. I don't want to put alot of work into posting an article on someone or something that will ultimately be eliminated within one second by just the push of a button. Perhaps with your experience here, you can tell ME if this is worth going after. This artist seems to be all over the internet with very respectable credentials and an extensive website. Not to mention a large catalog of music, not just that tune on the Phoenix. I found this info on what is a discography page located on his site. He's quite easy to locate with a simple search via his name although Ive seen other Dan Pintos that came up including a Real Estate agent. From my perspective, he seems to be a pro, but how do I know if I post anything on him that it wouldn't get erased? If writing about him is acceptable, I can start there and branch out to a number of refrences including the Phoenix and 9/11. He seems to be a good subject to talk about from what I can tell. Can you look at his site and tell me if I should continue along those lines so I don't wind up wasting my time please? Your help would be appreciated.
T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.11 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I would not want you to go to all the work to create an article, only for it to be deleted because of insufficient evidence of notability. I had assumed he was notable (meaning lots has been written about him in reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines) because he had lots of Google hits and because I saw this linked from a Google News search, but I can't find much more than that. Have you found other news or magazine articles? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul,

It would be nice to contribute to Wikipedia, but it seems a fine line from contribution weighed against time spent doing research to find out if the subject if "notible" enough. Especially when that subject has never before been researched for this site. It seems to be like finding a buried treasure in certain respects. However, after digging a bit deeper in trying to find that treasure and in reading the following guidelines taken from Wikipedia...

Notability(Music)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.),

I have come up with information regarding this artist from his site that states that he has landed his music on at least one notible TV show several times, not as the major theme, but certainly within the show's context. And that the music has been aired both in the us and internationally on major TV networks at some points in the past. This would seem to fit the criteria mentioned above to include this artist on this site, would you agree? But now here's the trick... Proving it. How does one go about doing that? Do I contact the artist's management or label, of which seems to be independant? I mean how would anyone know if a certain artist had contributed his or her music to a major TV show if that artist's music titles were not made of public record for doing so?

And Ive got to say, I looked over several artists that seem to be staples in the fabric of Wikipedia that are not at all well known by the mere mention of their names or the music they're being written about and I was not able to find one shred of evidence in doing a search in no less than 2 major search engines on the Internet that proves that they belong there at all. Who is the judge and when is proof that is not searchable justified on this site? I mean, the proof has to be in the form of viable data on the Internet since I don't believe that Wikipedia accepts snail mailed documents. This seems to be criteria on it's own enough for an article here. But that's not the subject matter I would be interested in writing about.

Since I am not familiar with the most proper ways in going about posting an article, your help may be critical if I am to do this at all. It seems quite discouraging and an awful amount of work to land an article here, especially for a new user. It also seems that there is a certain amount of unfairness in relation to established articles that is present in trying to get one posted.

T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1MusicSource2 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right when you say that there are some articles on Wikipedia that are somewhat questionable in terms of their subject's notability. The number of articles on Wikipedia is in general so large that it is tough sometimes to keep up with all the articles that need to be deleted according to policy. And then it is unfair to you that a new article you write will be under close scrutiny simply because it is new and because you are a new editor. I actually would generally recommend that new editors start by editing articles (not disambiguation pages like Phoenix by the way!) to "get the hang of things" before starting to write a brand-new article; overall I think that would be a less frustrating experience. If you want to request that someone write one on Dan Pinto you could always put that at Wikipedia:Requested articles and see what happens. If you do want to begin to write it yourself, though, and get some feedback before you subject it to potential deletion in the main article space, you could first write it in your own personal sandbox, e.g. at User:1MusicSource2/Sandbox. You are actually incorrect when you say that things have to be proved by providing Internet links. You can cite articles, books, news articles, etc that do not have web links—if we were not allowed to do that, it would be unlikely that we would have a cited article like Ancient Egyptian religion (no web links on that article!). --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Monica (given name)

Thanks for adding valuable content to Monica (given name). You'll be welcome any time at WikiProject Anthroponymy! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

yes.

I am affiliated with Paste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryrobbins06 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of Paste and have been reading it religiously for the past 3 years. My dad is the one who introduced me to it. So I'm taking my favorite bands (who happen to be lesser known) and putting up Paste's reviews because a lot of the wiki pages don't have any reviews at all.

People should know as much about a band as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.210.162 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a report at the Conflict of interest noticeboard here. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To Paul Erik for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch--Hu12 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheridan College

Hi - the original COI was an IP which admitted it was involved in the alumni organization at the college. (It may also be the recently created user that has recently edited the article heavily). Still, the AfDs went well - the really NN ones got deleted, and most of the rest got improved (I'm still a bit dubious about one or two, but whatever, 10 out of 12 isn't bad!). Black Kite 10:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the original IP was dynamic and in the 66.x.x.x range - it can be seen in the edit histories - but I'd have to serch a bit more to find the one that admitted to it (it was on a related AfD some time last year). Black Kite 08:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Funktronica

So have you found anything or shall we merge nu-funk in? Respond on my talk please. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 12:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul,

If you have seen the website that I am linking to then you can tell that the information on it is pertinant and valuable information about each and every one of these bands worthy of being mentioned and given praise. Through Daytrotter the bands are making music histoy. The bands themselves choose to record these special sessions and they would like nothing other than to get recognized for their time and efforts.

Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.111.11 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I do not mean to pass any judgment about how useful the links are. I would suggest, though, that you follow our WP:COI guidelines and mention the links on the Talk pages of the articles, and then the editors who usually edit those articles about the specific bands can decide whether or not to add them. Thanks much, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nu funk (respond on my talk)

I see, like two close genres, indie pop and indie rock or glam rock and glam metal... Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 14:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about the the "Vandalism" on the other page, this is my first time using both Wikipedia and the internet so please accept this apology. It wont happen again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplyobsessed (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 February 2008

previewing..

Noted...Apologies..I only started contributing to this yesterday and am still learning, but some things don't seem to allow you to preview them before changing and this is why I saved (and subsequently re-edited). I would appreciate your comments back on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redxx (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Page Move

I moved this page as a request on the talk page. I was unaware about any others issues going on at the time. If you would like to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 16:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Grateful for your assistance..but no worries - I think the reason I couldn't see the preview was because I hadn't scrolled enough (lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redxx (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Fuck

Hi Paul, I've responded to User:Lucyintheskywithdada on his or her talk page about moving the Holy Fuck article, and User:BarryNorton has redirected Holy Fuck to Holy Fuck (band) for now, though it is not an ideal solution to the problems created by the move. So what do you reckon we ought to do now? Do we request that the article be moved back to where it was or do we turn Holy Fuck into a disambiguation page and fix the misdirected wikilinks to Holy Fuck (band) manually? Cheers Strobilus (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi S. I don't see any compelling reasons to turn it into a disambiguation page, especially since all the incoming links are related to the band. So I think Holy Fuck (band) should be moved back to Holy Fuck, which likely can be done using the {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE}} template. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this discussion to my talk page and continue it there so User:Lucyintheskywithdada can weigh in and we can keep the discussion in one place. My inclination is to move the article back to its original location and put an other uses disambiguation link at the top of the page to point to material about the use of the term as an exclamation. If there are no objections I'll do so tomorrow or the next day. Strobilus (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

I saw your revert and thought I could explain to you why my edits were done: I simply put two of the smallest shortcuts one can remember to type in the next time he/she wants to visit the page. Would you object if the box had four shortcuts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate your intention here—trying to help everyone save time in getting to the page. One problem, in my opinion, is that your new shortcuts are not as easily recognizable as WP-space redirects because they do not follow the standard convention; see Wikipedia:Shortcut if you have not looked at that guideline already. Shortcuts like this are often used in edit summaries and on Talk pages, and encouraging the use of your new shortcuts by placing them on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) can create confusion if people are linking those less-recognized shortcuts. In general, the fewer alternative shortcuts used, the more recognized they are. Does that make sense? The two that are on the page have been standard for a long time, and it is what people are familiar with. That's my view, anyway. If you want to solicit other opinions on WT:MOSDAB please feel free. :) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. May I add those extra shortcuts to the box or would you prefer I ask on WT:MOSDAB beforehand? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think those shortcuts should be added; it minimizes confusion if we keep to the familiar standard ones, as I explained above. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth of July (band)

Hi ya Paul. In the discussion for the AfD for Fourth of July (band) you mentioned that Wikipedia guidelines say that deletion is to be considered only after attempts to find sources have been unsuccessful. When you get a moment, and so I can learn more about the deletion process could you please show me where it says that in the guidelines. Cheers heaps.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure!
    • Admittedly, Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not all that explicit about this imperative, but I think it is implied by If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I think that "regular editing" could be understood to include searching for sources.
    • Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines describes steps to take prior to deletion, including look for sources yourself.
    • But the place where it is stated most strongly is at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks Paul.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Williamson article

Name's Joel. I'm an arts student at ACAD in Calgary. I heard of this group Sound Gallery through a friend of mine that checks them out when they jam at Slaughter House Studios. I'm new to the whole wikipedia scene and thought that I could contribute and article about Sound Gallery, having heard some of their tunes on Facebook and having thought they sounded fairly cool. Not really thinking, I decided to use their band name as my username.

Either way, I wasn't able to find many references to the band in the media or online. So instead, I spoke with my friend and got the name of the group's members. I did find a few online sources and an article in a local rock 'zine about their singer. So I used what I found about him to attempt my first article. I understand there's a few more articles about the band itself around. But I haven't found any more quite yet. Hence, I have not yet created an article about them. I plan to. the canadian music portion of wikipedia requires some urgent editorial attention. Being an arts student with a hefty schedule, I'll contribute where I can.

I hope that helps. I will edit this article and add new ones as soon as further information becomes available.


Oh...and if you reply, please respond on my talk page.

Many thanks Paul!

user:Soundgallery


The image? Caitlin is a friend of mine from Seattle. She obtained the image from the band. She sent it to me when I told her that I was writing the article. No need to worry about "suspicion". I'd just call it due diligence. And it's something I enjoy seeing. You are good with information, my friend. I imagine you have been doing this for a long while. You should be a writer.

-joel Soundgallery (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Nick Cooper

Two reasons: (1) I thought it should be speedy deleted, and did. Then, I read the afd argument about the addition of new sources and thought "well, give it a chance at AfD." So restored it out of principle, not because I thought it was a good article. (2) Then just left because I was exhaustedly fighting an Amy Winehouse battle that day. I basically left it how I found it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I cannot begin to imagine what an Amy Winehouse battle would be like. :) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page - and for beating me to it on a day when reverting UPV is supposed to be my activity-du-jour! Dethme0w (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:) I was quick on that one. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Music Barnstar
Awarded to Paul Erik for exceptional effort and dedication to music-related articles. Thanks for all you do. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

.

Coming from you, that means a lot! Thank you so much. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, it was a long-time coming and I admire your work. BTW, have you seen this cool new tool? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a great tool; no, I had not seen it before. Thanks! --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me!

I often forget this, especially when it's a relatively short, quick edit. 71.204.133.251 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)nick71.204.133.251 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Nick. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Robert Christgau

i erased it because some1 removed my freedom of speech so i removed theirs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.218.109 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then I might suggest Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted

It's all good. I understand what you are saying. Most of those people I contacted voted keep, though, anyways. Yes, I do contact users that are closer to me or that I have worked with in the past to help me with things, but I also know they have their own minds and will vote the way they want and I don't encourage them to vote one way or the other. Besides, even if I think they will vote with me, they may bring some interesting arguments to the table or lay out some new info that was unknown beforehand.

On another note I don't see why people aren't getting my argument, which I have written in whole here. If the article is kept, though, I am going to personally go through and delete most of the articls, try and keep the bits that are okay and build on that. The article might need protection, too, as I have seen what some blatant idiots have added to it (total misinformation, fanboyism, stuff that doesn't belong there, etc.). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strike outs

Yes, I see what you mean. It was my intention to strike it out only because he had said the same thing before and had not read my response. I had a talk with him on his talk page, here, though, and I think he understood the situation. I won't do that again, though, as you are right and I should have had the person who wrote it strike it out and not me. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the advice? I'm rather new to editing and didn't know about having to explain why I did it. As for why, I was just trying to get rid of some vandalism called "The Game." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramist (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I see that another editor had already reverted the vandalism you were going after. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You welcome

Always glad to help :) AVandtalkcontribs 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth

Hello, I would like to know if you can give Opeth a copyedit. I was suggested to you by Tony1. If you are unable to do this please contact me on my talk page. feel free not to but it is very appreciated if you do. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be delighted to make an attempt, and I expect to have some time later today. I'm not experienced at FA-level articles, though, so if you make the same request of someone else in the meantime I certainly won't be insulted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry I forgot to add this.) I'm sure that when you are done, the article will be promoted. It has gotten copyediting from other users already, and it just needs a little more. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very very very much. Copyediting is my downside on here. I think the articl should be promoted very soon. Thanks again, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome. There are still some clarifications I would like, a few minor points. It's best to ask my questions on Talk:Opeth, I suppose? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can on my talk page or Opeth, it doesn't matter to me. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say thanks again for the copyedit - I think I hit all of your suggestions over at the Opeth talk page, let me know if you see anything else, thanks again! Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help out. Yes, it looks as if you cleared up all the things I was uncertain about. Great work on the article, both of you! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Emile

Thank you for linking the nws reference for Jonathan Emile the up and coming Montreal artist. Do you think it would be appropriate to remove the deletion request at this point. If so. Please feel free to do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilecity (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 March 2008

Glad to help. No, I think the deletion discussion should run for the usual length of time, about five days, and it needs to be closed by someone who is not involved in the discussion. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Emile Issues

Hello Paul Erik,

I am a new user. Can you read this message and tell me if it is okay to delete this tag from the above part of this wiki article:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> <!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Jonathan Emile" with "page=Jonathan Emile (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. -->{{AfDM|page=Jonathan Emile|date=2008 March 26|substed=yes}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page=Jonathan Emile|date=26 March 2008|result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->

Its says result "Keep", would this be okay to remove? Thanks. If so, can you remove it. It seems I have made too many edits.

Peace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilecity (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 March 2008

(Replied on user's Talk page) Hi. We must keep the "nominated-for-deletion" tag in place for now. The discussion has to run its course—the usual length is five days—and the person who closes the discussion (someone who is uninvolved, and usually an administrator) will be the one to remove the tag if the article is kept. Let me know if you have have any more questions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

re User:Headcheesey and possible sockpuppetry

A head up to let you know I have indef blocked the above account with regard to the matter of spamming, together with the sock suspicion. Obviously, they will have a hard time giving a defence to the charge so if you wish (me) to vary the tariff I have no objections. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will keep a watch on that user's Talk page to see if they make any requests to defend themselves with regard to the sock puppetry accusation. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wolfgang's Vault

Hi there, Paul. Yes, I am affiliated with Wolfgang’s Vault. Is there a problem with the external links? They are all either to reviews, like the All Music Guide links, or to pertinent articles/interviews. I’m pretty new to editing aspect of the site; if there is a better way to integrate material, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FenderRhodesScholar (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi FRS and thanks for your response. No, I was not concerned with any specific problems with the links, but you adding them to a large number of articles is not a good idea in the eyes of Wikipedians. Wikipedia has guidelines about conflict of interest and I would also suggest that you review the guidelines at WP:SPAMMER, which suggests, If your product (or external website) is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. Thanks very much and feel free to ask any questions if you find there is something unclear about those pages. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (also copying to user's Talk page)

Thanks for the advice, Paul. I'll follow the guidelines and use the Talk Pages as per outlined in the articles you cited. Does the same go for album reviews on album pages? --FenderRhodesScholar, 2 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, COI guidelines apply to adding links for album reviews too. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Paul, FRS again. I just wondered if you could take a look at a couple of the re-edits, or more importantly the associated talk pages I've been working on, and let me know if they fall fair: Talk:Baby_Dee, Talk:Amanda_Shaw. Again, thank you.
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that looks very much in line with the COI guidelines; thanks for taking the time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arawak Jah

An editor has nominated Arawak Jah, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arawak Jah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not ok

It’s not ok for a few people (like you) to try and control Wikipedia. This website is supposedly made by everyone. I'm a new user and I have more than a few choice words about your stupidity in thinking you can control the internet. All I know if you feel have some right to Wikipedia then fine; but you are never to post on my discussion board again! Can you as an asinine 2 bit loser understand that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvelousdaze06 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Perhaps not a "notable controversy" but Shaidle's bigoted and unconscionable remarks (referencing a massacre of innocent men, women and children as "the good old days") certainly didn't go unnoticed by other bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.90.155 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Stampeders

Hi Paul

I'm a member of the band and would like this info to be accurate. The Best Rich dodsonYanker (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

School CSDs

It's only a recommendation. I don't have to follow it. GreenJoe 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for reverting my user page :) Stephenb (Talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Great work vandal-fighting. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Chromaview

Yes, I am affiliated with Chromaview. Our company is small, but we do in fact publish magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erocksit (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Paul,

I am with Concert Attack I was not aware that was considered spamming. Is it? I was just trying to add another legit and relevant resource, same as with myspace or purevolume, to artist related pages. Is there anyway to indicate that when posting? I don't want to violate any guidelines on here. I'll hold off unless you tell me otherwise.

Thanks for your help!

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tespun (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul, Thanks for clarifying the COI for me.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tespun (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky
Hurray for VanTucky! You'll make a great admin. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal bloodline descendants

Regarding [1]: if not appropriate for the VPP, perhaps that text might be more at home in List of people who have claimed to be Jesus :P GracenotesT § 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks like the place for it! :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the advice, i'm new.. Anyway, i just read the image policy, but i was wondering if you could tell me how to actually upload an image. Thanks, --Terminator14 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright content

I have another problem, i uploaded the picture, but they're claiming i need to add this and that, like copyrights, media source, permission, stuff like that. What is it i'm to do to keep this image on the page? I need your help on this because i have no idea who has the copyrights or how to get in touch with them. Thanks, Terminator14 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Wikipedia must be very careful about its use of copyrighted material—see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair use considerations, and for more detail Wikipedia:Non-free content. The bottom line, if I am interpreting things correctly, is that it's unlikely that we could use your image without those things like source, copyright holder, and so on. I'm not an expert in image policy though, so you can ask questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you would like some more knowledgeable editors to weigh in. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'm just kind of concerned because i put the image there for historical purposes and entirely had good faith, because i believed there needed to be an actual old box to compare to todays. I'll try my best to get this cleared up.

Thank you, Terminator14 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Oh

Done. What the heck was that nonsense all about? Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Oh, by the way, I strike again: a woman successfully answered a Grant Lawrence trivia challenge this afternoon, acknowledging that she used Wikipedia's article on Slow to do it. Which obviously amuses me, since I'm the original creator and primary contributor on that one. I'm slowly turning into the secret backbone of Canadian indie rock, clearly! Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

As someone who has had relatively recent dealings with Abtract, and who is mentioned as a party who attempted to correct his actions, I thought it would be proper to notify you that an RfC/User has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. Collectonian (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. From a glance (that was a fair amount of work you went to, collecting all the diffs) it does appear that Abtract has continued to have problematic interactions, edit warring and then getting defensive (pointing to other editors' conduct problems rather than being accountable for his own actions regardless) when others try to talk to him about it. Perhaps User:Redrocket is making some progress. As for me, I will refrain from certifying the RfC since it seems like such a long time ago (December 2007) that I attempted to help Abtract with his interactions. Sorry not to be of help to you, Collectonian. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. :) I am hoping he will listen to Redrocket, but from his history, it seems like he doesn't follow through with saying it. Collectonian (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul

I have posted some great links to a lyrics site that offers users extra info.

The rules state : Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic;

These pages give extra info about the titled song including video and lyrics... you should not be removing these links, nobody else did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.75.197 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be cautious about using Wikipedia to promote your website. I have not been the only one to remove your links to ericslyrics.com – several other editors have also removed them. Please see WP:LINKSPAM, which states, in part: Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Let me know if you have any more questions, but please refrain from spamming Wikipedia with external links, and using multiple accounts to do so. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul-

Thanks for the reply...however I still don't seem to follow how or why you consider this spam. It's simply a resource for more info not available on wikipedia. It's is not like I am linking to a vigara page. Users sometimes want more info than what is available on wikipedia, is that not what external links are for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.75.197 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the values of an external links section; however, that is not the issue here—policy is very clear that Wikipedia is not meant to be used for advertising or promotion. If you have not read it already, please see Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer, which does a better job of explaining this kind of thing than I am doing. If you believe that your links are relevant, please add them to the Talk pages of the articles, so that the regular editors of those articles can decide whether or not to add the links. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AdventuresInMusic.biz

Paul, yes I am affiliated with AdventuresInMusic.biz. I'm prepared to defend my posts. I see that you've been down the conflict of interest road before, offering different advice in different circumstances. What do you advise in my case? -Chris Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwdirect (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. You have not been as aggressive with adding external links as some of the others noted further up my page, but I would still say it is good practice to stick to the Talk pages of articles and let other editors decide whether or not to add the external links. See WP:COI. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I will take your suggestion and follow the procedure you outline in the future. I will only seek to add more links where I have solid content, so I am hopeful the outcomes will be favorable. Many good wishes, -Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwdirect (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Erik/Archive_3&oldid=1139366898"