User talk:ArcAngel/Archive0020

A note..

..that managing three notable bands is normally considered evidence of significance. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I saw nothing implicitly stated which is why I tagged it. But if that is the case, then why it is tagged for notability?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean explicitly. And the answer is "because it has no reliable sourcing", and the followup answer is "and CSD tags are for significance, which is a lower standard than notability". Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. Guess I will avoid A7 again, seems I still don't quite "get it".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Interfaith Families Project of Greater Washington, D.C. multiple issues flag

Over at Interfaith Families Project of Greater Washington, D.C., I've moved two more external links into inline references, added detail on 'Today' including adult education, and current location of Sunday religious services. So now there are additional references from more than one source, which sounds like it would warrant the removal of the multiple issues tag. I have plenty more to work on for this page, but does that like the right assessment to you? Thanks. Ryansholin (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Chumlee (Austin Russell)

I almost redirected it myself, then I realized that it's not a plausible search term. Chumlee certainly is, Austin Russell probably isn't, but I certainly don't think Chumlee (Austin Russell) is. I think A7 is probably the most common sense solution, as it would probably be deleted in a week anyway. Swarm ^X 05:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert if you want, but I was thinking of "covering all the bases" when I made the redirect.   ArcAngel   (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My RFA

Okay, I closed the RFA. But feel free to discuss on my talk page. And you signature has an extra ")" in it. :) –BuickCenturyDriver 03:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nalin singh

Hello ArcAngel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nalin singh, 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. ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't recognize anything as such, but thanks for letting me know.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well lead actor was an assertion of importance, as was "he is forecasted as the next "super star" of Bollywood by the Indian media". Neither of those preclude it turning out to be a hoax. and BLPprod is appropriate - either those forecasts in the Indian media will be added to the article or it will get deleted. Remember speedy is for the uncontentious deletions that don't need discussion. Once you get into arguments about whether particular lead actors are notable AFD then is the better venue. ϢereSpielChequers 09:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I looked at "forecasted to be the next superstar" to be a bit of crystalballing, so felt that it didn't apply when it came to A7. I see I still have much work to do in this area.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on who is doing the forecasting, in this case allegedly it is the Indian media. Forecast by fans wouldn't be a credible assertion, but the Indian media should be reliable expert sources as in Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. ϢereSpielChequers 18:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages

OK, I get the point. But I definitely got a bad vibe from the way you put it. It read like a slap on the wrist. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the tone of my message sounded gruff, it wasn't meant that way. Was just trying to inform you of something of which you might not have been aware.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ArcAngel. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

don't delete the fore's wikipedia page

Hey Arc Angel I've don the references on The Fore's page now what else do I need to do to avoid it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forepedia (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job!

Just thought I'd say good job on the List of electronic music record labels article, keeping it relatively clean and tidy, getting rid of the not-notable additions :) 80.5.44.230 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I can't stand red-links, and most of what I take out are promotional anyway.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Template colors

Answer me this honestly--

Why are you taking it upon yourself to be the template police? McDonalds' colors of yellow and red are iconic (everybody has seen the golden arches) thus coloring the template in those colors would be a reflection of that. WWE's logo is red, white, and black and is also very iconic. Again, why is it OK for sports teams, but not other entities that have famous and in some cases iconic logos/color schemes? If I were adding all kinds of questionable information to the articles that needed sourcing, I could see why you'd be concerned. But merely coloring the template to reflect their iconic logo is not really something that is really reason to get up in arms about. Also, what's wrong with adding a little color to break up the monotony? Vjmlhds 20:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also--look at the templates for Pepsi and Coca-Cola for example...they're in their respecitve colors (Pepsi-blue and white, Coke-red and white) and have been like that forever. Again, your arguement holds no water. Vjmlhds 20:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like yours hold no water. It's not that I have become a "template cop", I just feel your changes are not needed to "spruce" up what you call drab colored templates. These things are usually decided by consensus, not by one editor with an agenda.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When all of these other templates were colored, there wasn't some big consensus that was needed. Someone colored them, and they've been left that way ever since. Now, I can see needing consensus if there was some questionable information going into the article itself. But merely coloring in the template is not something that really needs a whole lot of hub-bub made about it. As I said, there are colored templates all over Wikipedia for sports teams and major companies. Where your arguement fails is that it's OK for some and not for others. So it's OK for Pepsi to have a template in their colors, but not WWE? Again...your arguement has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Vjmlhds 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

After giving this some more thought, I have decided that what you are doing is no big deal and doesn't really hurt the encyclopedia (other than some combos make it hard to read), and so I will request unprotection of the templates, and I apologize for giving you a hard time about it. My Wiki-philosophy sometimes doesn't match up with others'.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected :) The Helpful One 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Arc--I'd rather deal with people like you that have good intentions at heart than idiots who vandalize pages just to be jackwagons.

I hoist my Pepsi to you in a toast.

Vjmlhds 00:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Yeah, I was watching it. I made sure to stop before I violated. Crisis.EXE 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yo

There's a page on Rebecca Black, who has one song, ever released ever. And yet you consider my band Unstable un-notable here on wikipedia, and had my article deleted. The girl might have a lot of hits, but we have multiple albums, revenue from our album sales, ect. Like I said back in February, the decision to remove Unstable was unfair and wrong. I think it further proves your biased opinions towards local unsigned artists, and discrimination of matierial that goes on wikipedia. I don't understand who gives people like you authority on here, because you're not elping the sight, your nit picking, and discriminating on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 15:04, April 27, 2011

As far as Unstable goes, it was put up for a COMMUNITY discussion, and the only keep !vote was yours. It failed WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, and possibly also failed WP:BAND as well. As far as Rebecca Black goes, her notability was proven, unlike your band. The opinions expressed here are not biased, but based on set guidelines and policies. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the deletion review board.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on dude see this is my problem with this site as of late, you people talk down in your posts and attempt to make whomever you argue with look like an idiot. I'm NOT an idiot, my band absolutely passed, and the people who voted against my page majority ad a history of deleting numerous articles. And no she SHOULDN'T pass, my band DOES pass over hers, by the way, not that that's an argument for here, but don't make me sound like an A**hole like I have no means of being aggravated with your sites BS process.

Thanks for the response, more than I expected, and I get you went based on the majority, fair enough, but my band absolutely passes, and those 'users' were discriminatory. Why you gotta be covered on 50 sites to be on here? Cause like that chicks covered on mad site, but there all talking about her ONE video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are failing to understand how things work here. WP:RS should help explain about why someone needs significant third-party coverage to be included here. Wikipedia isn't for the average Joe Schmoe to be written about. Not saying that your band fits that category, but you failed to provide even one source that established notability. Like I sugggested above, if you want a chance at having the article resurrected, put a request up at WP:DRV. Someone will then take a look at it and get back with a response one way or another.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)