User talk:Reapers Lullaby

Speedy deletion nomination of Sonic Erotica

A tag has been placed on Sonic Erotica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Sonic Erotica

A tag has been placed on Sonic Erotica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been monitoring discussions between ESkog and other administrators and the original individual who posted Sonic Erotica. I've copied all of the edit information and will be forwarding it on to others in the Wikipedia community. You'll find others adding to Sonic Erotica as time progresses. Sonic Erotica was unfairly deleted. Mirror Man seems to be trying to figure out the nuances of Wikipedia (as am I) and has been shown zero tolerence for the learnig curve. It's a shame really.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Sonic Erotica (band), to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it is inappropriate. The link you've provided doesn't do a very good job at that.

It is inappropriate because it is a repost of an article that was deleted via a deletion discussion. No matter how unfair the discussion was, just reposting the article is a breach of policy. If you think the deletion was unfair, please make your case at deletion review instead. But I wouldn't get my hopes up: since you spent a great deal of effort showing the existence of the band, it shows that you yourself do not believe the band meets our minimum notability requirements. Come on. Go to the article on the Rolling Stones. Do you see a picture of a show ticket stub there? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't see a show ticket stub there. Did you see one on Sonic Erotica? I didn't. What I DID see was pictures of the band on stage, a promo pic from the sixties, and a picture of a club where they recorded a show. I'd be happy to provide pictures of the same if you'd like.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is a review from a reliable source that is not affiliated in any way with the band. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. I published an article about them in 1996 in the now defunct Eclipse Magazine. I had scanned a copy in and it was deleted from Wiki twice by ESkog. I interviewed the band back then and I've worked with them in some venues. I was never employed by or in the band. Money had never changed hands between myself and them. I've provided links to the former band members and that has been disregarded. I've provided more information about this band's history (SO FAR) than TexA.N.S. yet that has been accepted. So then, besides all of the links I've provided thus far, perhaps you could provide me a more concise idea what your definition of "reliable source" is and I'll even let Mirror Man in on the secret.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, since I do not have access to what has been deleted (as I am not an administrator), maybe you could make your case at deletion review. As for the reliability of sources, let me just say that a mention in a local community newspaper, for example, does not establish a band's notability. A source is deemed reliable if it is published with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a two page spread including a photo and interview with that band along with a complete review of their debut cd in a regional newspaper be considered reliable? And what of Clear Channel Radio's WXTB 98 ROCK? Wouldn't a half hour interview with the band including their music being broadcast be considered reliable? It seems as though these are being ignored. Am I wrong?--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your two-page spread, then no, since it constitutes paid advertizement. And about the interview, it will only be deemed reliable if a transcript is available, per our policy on verifiability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT the two page spread. That is an advertisement flyer. The newspaper article (Psycho-sensuals-unite.jpg I believe it was called) was deleted on two occassions to what appears to me better support another's argument. As far as the transript. I assume you mean written transcript from the radio station from 13 years ago?--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file you're talking about has been deleted as a copyright infringement, so unless you can point to a website that contains an archive of the newspaper article, you cannot use that. As for the transcript, yes, I am talking about a transcript from the radio station from 13 years ago. But whether the transcript is written or audio, I don't care. It just has to be available. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

Hello.
I removed your unprotection request both because it was malformed and because it's about a page that was deleted following a deletion discussion and create-protected due to numerous recreations, and will need to be discussed at deletion review anyway. However, if you decide to take that venue, please make sure to carefully read the instructions first.
Thank you, Amalthea 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions are cryptic at best. Clarify please.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the very first thing you need to do is show why the conclusion from the deletion discussion is incorrect. That is, prove that the band meets the criteria found in WP:BAND, by listing reliable sources that can show the notability of the band. I'm afraid a 13 year old radio interview alone is not going to be enough for that by far, if there's no transcript available then not even if it had aired on a highly notable station. If the band is of encyclopedic notability, there has to be more about the band. Books, newspaper coverage, magazine coverage, ... . Considering how the AfD went down, you'll probably have to present very very clear evidence.
Amalthea 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirror Man for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have? If it's the IP address. This is a networked computer system with 64 work stations and employees.--Reapers Lullaby (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we need the information from your block message. You aren't blocked directly, and the auto template isn't providing the information we need to find any autoblocks. Syrthiss (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. -- Netsnipe ► 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Reapers Lullaby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

97.67.12.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirror Man

Blocking administrator: Icestorm815 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]