User talk:VMAsNYC

Mistaken block

I've notified ^demon about this unblock request - I must admit your username doesn't seem promotional to me, and a quick glance at your contributions appears ok. Would you mind explaining what (if anything) VMAsNYC stands for. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw several edits in relation to the MTV VMAs and I interpreted the username as being a promotional name from MTV. If this isn't indeed the case I'm willing to let Tivedshambo handle the unblock request. Apologies for the misinterpretation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It doesn't mean anything, as one word. That's why a google search of it will reveal I am the only example. It does reflect the city in which I work, and an interest of mine (the VMA has a dozen or so Wiki meanings, and one is my interest). But just as if I liked MLB (major league baseball) and it would be fine for my name to be MLBNYC, I think my name here is fine. Again, Demon's name is related to a real-world company, and I don't see him changing his name. I think this is fairly ridiculous, and an unfortunate waste of your time and mine. I would appreciate your taking action on this asap. As you will see from my last conversation with the admin (Mazca -- see [1]who made me a confirmed user, I have some material that I wish to upload which is time sensitive. He reviewed my edits, found them constructive, and made me a confirmed user -- only for the other (aptly named) editor to then follow that up next with a block. I would appreciate it if you would unblock me now pending any cogent reason being supplied by Demon for his action (which he took without any explanation beyond the template, I note). I don't think I should be further hindered by his failure to respond to my request here (which he should have seen -- I imagine this page should be on his watch list -- or your request. Thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If...

If you happen to see Fefe Dobson at the VMA's please tell her that MR. DETAIL says, "Hello."
I appreciate your work on her wiki.
Iknow23 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR warning

Note, you are in violation of the there revert rule on The Shells. You might want to revert your own last revert on that page lest you be blocked from editing. I have tried discussing this with you on the talk page to no avail. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is certainly a peculiar response to my request at [2] that you "pls stop edit warring; if you want to explain why your edits are mandatory please continue the discussion on your talk pg where we have been discussing, leaving the article as-is".

Given that we first met a couple of days ago when I suggested to you at [3] that your edits might be a disservice to Wikipedia, and that in immediate reaction you wikistalked me with you next two dozen edits to pages I had created and edits I had made -- and began revising/deleting them -- I believe that the first reverts in this series are yours. Therefore, if I have violated the three revert rule (which I do not believe is the case), you are certainly one revert ahead of me and have violated a four-revert rule as it were.

As to substantive issues that I have with your edit warring with me over date format, in which you consistently and repeatedly reverted from an acceptable and uniform format of the first major contributor, I've addressed that issue at [4]. Your activities are as stated there a direct violation of some rather strong language from the Arbitration Committee, and I would ask you (yet again) to desist.

In any event, as we are already discussing with an admin the problem that I have with your edits at [5], rather than (as you are doing here) further spreading the discussion across multiple pages to the point that this discourse will be difficult to follow, I would suggest that we discuss non-substantive complaints that either of us may have at that page--where we are already discussing them.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, VMAsNYC. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied to you here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFCR

I have closed off the back-and forth you are having with J Milburn; please do not continue it. All comments should be focused on determining the fair use status of the image in question, not on continuing a personal fight with another editor. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect.--VMAsNYC (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of WeThreeRecords

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on WeThreeRecords requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an 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. —teb728 t c 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Shells

I have nominated The Shells, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:The Shells

Template:The Shells has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shells

I knocked out most of the material in The Shells that is causing problems here. Forgive me for undoing so much hard work. I don't think it is a good idea to simply restore this material. Trust us that this is not how Wikipedia works — the material will be deleted again. Also note that I voted to keep this article, so I'm on your side here. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The bit about the Charlie Gillingham article is actually kind of funny to me. That article is not very good, I'm afraid. I never edit it, of course, since Wikipedia editors are not supposed to edit articles about themselves (see the guideline WP:COI). Feel free to knock out the unsourced junk if the spirit moves you.

I think a lot of the heat that the article on the Shells is receiving is because there is a sense by several editors that this article may have been written for the purpose of promoting the band. That would be WP:Conflict of interest and is not allowed in Wikipedia (for obvious reasons). To keep the heat off, I would avoid adding anything to the article that sounds even vaguely promotional. The thing to do now is to sit back and let Wikipedia work. If the Shells are interesting and continue to make the news, then there will be more material.

Positive reviews are not news. If there was some controversy or some negative reviews, then the article would be in better shape. But (as is typical with a band at the start of their career) I doubt there are any substantial bad reviews. ( Journalists rarely write negative things about new bands. They have to be particularly heinous or controversial.)

For now, I think the Shells are notable only as the answer to the question "who the hell are the Shells?" This requires just a few sentences to answer, really. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've no problem with the Gillingham article. It was just the quickest example of what abounds here -- it doesnt' look as though reflecting band members' places of birth and schools is considered innappropriate promotion. And from a glance I thought that all manner of band articles reflected reviews -- that seems to be one of the key elements of band articles, actually, as long as the reviews are from reliable verifiable third party sources they appear to me to be encouraged.

But I'm happy at the moment to follow your advice let Wikipedia work. This experience with editors following me and dedicating their lives to pulling down entries supported by neutral third-party reliable sources -- if I am the one who made them -- astounds me.

Other than that I like the VMAs and the band and female trios generally (and I don't understand that to be a conflict) -- I have no personal or professional relationship with the band, the VMAs, the music industry, the media, etc.

Do you think it would make sense (as some have suggested) to pull the Written Roads album information (track listing, photo, etc.) into the band article, and delete the album article?

This effort by others, btw, has extended to others now even proposing deletion of the wikipedia article re this MTV VMA -- they are seeking to delete it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Best_Breakout_New_York_City_Artist_Award .

And just today, the fellow who wikistalked me at the outset of all this has sought to delete reference of the fact that the award is an MTV VMA (part of its official name, per the citations supplied) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Best_Breakout_New_York_City_Artist_Award&diff=314479256&oldid=314441834 -- that would lead the reviewing admin to miss that important fact.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VMAsNYC, the unreferenced material can be moved to the talk page for further discussion (if it is a lot of text hide it using {{Collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}}. That is what I always do with information which is hurting an article, espeically during an AFD. Ikip (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I really appreciated your impassioned argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Shells I feel like our group would be enriched with your presence:

Hello, VMAsNYC.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can delete anything on your talk page. I would suggest you start with that big ugly indefinite block sign, which gives editors the wrong impression when they first visit you. Ikip (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case--block lifted

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Black Kite 10:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The block was lifted on appeal. (this account was an alternate account, but was not being used as a sockpuppet. To avoid confusion, however, I volunteered to discontinue its use). See [6]

Orphaned non-free image (File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Shells Written Roads album cover1 .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —teb728 t c 09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]