User talk:Raktoner

September 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Escape the Fate. Thank you. Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape The Fate

Listen, I don't really think they're a screamo band either, but Wikipedia is about facts that are linked to reliable sources. There are credible citations for both genres on their page. That being said, please stop removing screamo from Escape The Fate's genre section. You're just wasting your time. Myself or another editor will revert it right back within a few hours.

--hsxeric (talk) 16:36, September 7, 2009

Sadly, I was coming to say exactly the same thing. If something's sourced, we generally take it as 'fact', whether or not we agree. If you can find sources that say they aren't screamo that outweigh the sources that say they are, then we can remove it. Fol de rol troll (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could source that they don't like being called screamo, but I'm sure plenty of fat people don't like being called fat. It's difficult to get something like that removed, because it's very rare that independant sources will actively state that they think a band aren't something. Fol de rol troll (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Word Alive

A tag has been placed on The Word Alive, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Them From Space 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked me about the deletion of The Word Alive, you can see the given reasons at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=The_Word_Alive which is the deletion log. You can see that my name is not on the list. Currently it is only nominated for speedy deletion, not actually in a deleted state. You should argue your point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (3rd nomination). The previous deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (2nd nomination) which was stopped before conclusion, but the original debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive. The basic standard is that two people independent of the band have written on the topic of them. So if you can find the newspapers or mags with the band features, the article can stay. Myspace is a primary source and does not count towards proving notability. Similarly the record label is a second party source that is not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page. If you wish to get an article on the band in Wikipedia again, you should write a userspace draft (for example, at User:Raktoner/The Word Alive) with independent reliable sources and then list the page at WP:DRV to request recreation. Regards, Ucucha 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, Ucucha. I think they already deserve an article at this point, but if they don't meet Wikipedia's odd standards, may as well let it go until they do meet the standards. --Raktoner (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Raktoner/The Word Alive

User:Raktoner/The Word Alive, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raktoner/The Word Alive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Raktoner/The Word Alive during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace links

It is important to realise that user-space pages, which exist for the purpose of being used by editors in the course of working on the encyclopaedia, are quite separate from articles, which exist for readers of Wikipedia, and it is not acceptable to have links from articles into user-space pages. There are various reasons why editors sometimes make the mistake of creating such links from main-space into user-space. A common reason is using pages in user-space as substitutes for articles which for one reason or another don't exist. If you read WP:FAKEARTICLE you will find that it says "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Situations; Born of Osiris; Apocalypse demo; Something (Escape the Fate song); The Apocalypse Manifesto; Greek Apocalypse of Daniel; Home Tonight; GC EP; The Click (song); The World Outside (ESTK album); Where Would We Be Now; This Afternoon (song); Beyond the Apocalypse; Punk Goes Classic Rock; Punk Goes Pop 2; Greek Apocalypse of Ezra; Emarosa (album); 8-Bit Rebellion!; Bitch's Brew

Cleanup: Paramore; The Almost; Eyes Set to Kill
Merge: Before Their Eyes; Ezekiel Rage; The Vincent Black Shadow
Add Sources: I Set My Friends On Fire; Post-hardcore; Parkway Drive
Wikify: Nightmare (album); New Device; The Darkest Nights
Expand: James Hetfield; No Rain, No Rainbow; Pink (song)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversions

Do not revert other editors without explanation, as you did here. Unexplained reversion is reserved for vandalism, and, as I clearly pointed out the guideline that led to my edit, there is no reasonable way to classify my edit as vandalism.

Further, please note that WP:NSONGS clearly lays out the times in which a song deserves a standalone article: it must have charted, received an award, or been recorded by multiple notable artists. This song has done none of those things.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Don Gilmore for deletion

The article Don Gilmore is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gilmore 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.Danger (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crunkcore, Talk:Kesha/Archive 4, Talk:Kesha/Archive 2". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:50, 29 October 2012 (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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Raktoner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]