User talk:Neon white

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 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those groups do not connect to Pop art, and the links are gratuitous and irrelevant...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA *is* dispute resolution; I'm objecting to the way Ikip is hindering dispute resolution of the content dispute. What else am I supposed to do about an editor hounding me and violating CIVIL even after he's blocked for hounding me? THF (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you didn't read my complaint. This is not a content dispute, this is a civility dispute. Ikip has tried to turn it into a content dispute by falsely accusing me of edit-warring, which is exactly the incivil behavior I'm complaining about, even though I haven't even violated 1RR. You're letting him throw mud on the WQA process--just because he's misusing it to complain about the content dispute doesn't mean that I am. THF (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the brief nature of this, please see my userpage (not talk) for details. Once again, thanks for all the help and input at WQA, you make the Wiki a better place! Edit Centric (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using Utan Vax's genre troll "noticeboard" (Well, I want to turn it into one). I've left Arcai a gentle note about his genre changes, as per my genre troll essay. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the layout of Utan Vax's page? I want to improve it and make it look cleaner and more efficience. Thanks in advance for anything you think of!

As for a solution, it's hard to come by. ANI is not really a solution because this is a set of isolated incidents rather than one big one and it becomes harder to discern where administrator interaction is necessary. An RfC would be toothless. Mediation is pointless because neither will agree to it. I agree that WQA doesn't really help either. Ideally, we'd set a ban on interaction, but I'm not so certain how we would set it to avoid it being gamed. Perhaps if they're commenting in a community process (AfD, RfC, whatever), they're not allowed to directly address one another? I'm open to ideas. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also my reply on Sephiroth BCR's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page. Let's keep this discussion centered there. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion really isn't going anywhere, I think RfC/U is a better course to resolve this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, i'd like to give it a few days, i think we can agree something between the two editors. --neon white talk 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently reported for Wikiquette and am not sure about the process and noticed that you are managing it, is it an open discussion that I can add to or is it a closed discussion. Can I issue a Wikiquette alert in response toward the other user although I do understand that is not a constructive point of view but I do to a degree feel that I'm constantly shut down by the other user. Any info/advice would be helpful. Regard Random12347 (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir- a partial repost from the Wikialert page. Thank you for your kind words. I will admit, I was a little short with the language sent in those talk pages, but I was simply following advice found on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution; it suggests finding uninvolved editors to get feedback from, which you can see I did; and the one editor who then did contribute, I softly rebuked. Truly, resorting to canvassing at this stage would have destroyed any legitimacy my arguments might have. I was simply perplexed why so many people were getting so worked up, spending enormous amounts of time ignoring the counterpoints and arguments I was making, and I wanted some honest feedback from people who've experienced the process before. If you look, you will see with user "Bali Ultimate", for instance, after suggesting the article Peter Jukes was deleted because of his words on The Motley Moose AfD, I looked a little closer and immediately apologized; however, he seems to have taken it badly and things have gone downhill from there. Sigh. I certainly didn't intend for things to get so contentious. I wish there was a way to make it all go away, we all could be improving Wikipedia instead of all this rigamarole. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In line with my previous comment [6] (still viewable on your talk page), it appears you have continued to make counter productive commentary at Wikiquette alert. Everything has a context, and it is clear that seicer wasn't attempting to attack anyone in the comment you responded to here - she merely explained to Black Kite why felt there was no offense in her comments, and what sort of comment she felt would by contrast cause offense. Discussing one's position is not attacking WQA contributors; that is plain common sense. Please stop and think; it is unacceptable to continually engage in unhelpful and counterproductive commentary (frivolous accusations), as it escalates disputes rather than resolve them.

WQA contributors, particularly regulars, are meant to comment at this venue to help towards resolving disputes, both in intention, and in effect - or to direct them to the next venue where they can continue to attempt to do so. Your commentary did not accomplish either/or. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now you are creating drama to simply create drama" is a personal attack and incivil. It is unacceptable in a WAQ as it is in any discussion. My reminder was both appropriate and necessary.--neon white talk 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack; Black Kite, the comment who it was directed at, also agrees that it was a not a personal attack. If you cannot distinguish between the two by this point, then there's a major problem here. As such, until you can understand that your commentary here was unhelpful, I see no choice but to move to the next step. No amount of trying to disguise it will change the end outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, read the

WP:NPA policy, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. The rule is comment on content not contributors. I think you seriously need to reconsider this petty personal vendetta, like any editor you are free to disagree with my opinion but taking a simple disagreement to such lengths is harming no-one but yourself. You have been advised to drop it by multiple third parties and i think that is good advise. Kindly refrain from posting here again. --neon white talk 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, whilst I clearly think seicer was wrong, I didn't take it as a personal attack. Something like (as I saw in a similar discussion recently) "Oh, here's X again, creating drama like he always does" would probably violate NPA, but in the context of the discussion it wasn't unreasonable, it was just her opinion of my comment. Black Kite 10:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as the policy says there's no clear definition. I interpreted it as an

"accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence" and other editor's have seen it the same way. It was quite obviously an accusation against a contributor not a comment on content. I can see no evidence to justify the response in what you wrote previously. It certainly wasn't assuming good faith and not a great way to repsond to a WQA and i think my short reminder (it wasnt like I was posting final warnings all over a talk page, it wasnt even a first warning, just a reminder that we arent here to start fights) was reasonable bearing in mind that. --neon white talk 11:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note, I've made a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neon_white.27s_unhelpful_commentary_at_WQA so other eyes can review what I've said, and perhaps an administrator can get this message more effectively to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Leto and Tomo Milicevic have appeared in TV in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Doesn't Knapsack Fit In This. They are a band who fit in the emo artists page. BOTH refences clearly say, EMO BAND. And, why do you keep erasing A Static Lullaby, sure, they aren't exactly the best resources, but we all know they are emo. Have you ever seen their music video for Hang Em' High, they were 2x as emo as 30 Seconds to Mars Was In Their video for The Kill. Explain these 2 things to me in a good way. (please, im not trying to seem like a jerk, it just seems odd that these two artists keep being removed.)

I checked the references and there was no mention of it. Please check your references carefully. The article on Knapsack is as follows : -

Indie-rockers with an emotional core to their music as well as the requisite adrenalin rush, Knapsack formed around two high-school pals studying at University of California at Davis. Vocalist/guitarist Blair Shehan and drummer Colby Mancasola both grew up in nearby Redding, and in mid-1993 they formed the group, originally featuring guitarist Jason Bokros and bassist Rod Meyer. By 1994, Knapsack had released a seven-inch single on the San Diego label Goldenrod, and thanks to an incessant tour schedule, the quartet signed with Alias Records by May of that year. Their debut album, Silver Sweepstakes, appeared in April 1995, followed by tours with amenable acts such as Pavement, Jawbox, Drive Like Jehu and Rocket from the Crypt. After Bokros left the group, Knapsack replaced him with Sergie Loobkoff (of Samiam) and released their second album, Day Three of My New Life, in early 1997. This Conversation Is Ending Starting Right Now followed a year later. Further lineup changes occured in 2000 when Shehan left the band and joined The Jealous Sound.

• We cannot use the term 'emotional core' as a cited for emo as a genre. It's not the same thing. Other than that there is no other mention of the genre.

The article on Sky Eats Airplace only mentions 'metalcore' as a genre.

Sky Eats Airplane is a metalcore band from Texas whose style of music incorporates touches of electronica. Founded in 2005 in Fort Worth, TX, the band was originally comprised of vocalist Brack Cantrell and guitarist Lee Duck, who were both formerly of the band Our First Fall. Billing themselves as Sky Eats Airplane, Cantrell and Duck self-produced the full-length debut album Everything Perfect on the Wrong Day (2006), performing all the music themselves and programming whatever they couldn't perform. Originally released independently, the album was re-released in 2007 by Raleigh, NC-based indie label Tragic Hero Records. Shortly after the original release of Everything Perfect on the Wrong Day, Cantrell split from the band to start his own, Balance Problems, in which he sings and plays guitar. In the wake of his departure, Duck recruited a full-band lineup for Sky Eats Airplane -- Jerry Roush (vocals), Zack Ordway (guitar), Johno Erickson (bass), and Kenny Schick (drums) -- while at the same time retaining the touches of electronica that had characterized the band's music to date. The new full-band lineup proceeded to record the full-length album Sky Eats Airplane (2008). Released in association with Equal Vision Records, the self-titled album proved popular on the metalcore scene, breaking into the Billboard 200 albums chart upon its release.

You will need to find sources that cite the genre to add it to the list. --neon white talk 06:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR was for an unspecified length of time, although to be honest I'd stopped watching him because he seemed to be behaving himself. I've posted a friendly reminder on his talk page (which I think is reasonable because the block wasn't that long ago), hopefully he will take that as a cue to step back. Certainly, for æsthetic reasons his edits make sense to me, but we can't have him continuing to act like that. If he keeps edit warring in the next few hours (when I'll be away from the computer), you have my support for issuing a short block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, was talking about this edit. He's agreed to play nice now, so hopefully no admin intervention will be needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you keep deleting added genres? Keep adding dubstep/electronica and you keep deleting them. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and see the talk page. The consensus was to keep it broad and no made up or falsly attributed genres. Post-hardcore, metalcore etc seems to be the reliable consensus. --neon white talk 08:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think if you ask around, you will find the consensus is that dubstep is an acceptable and well-attributed genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that. Dubstep is a sub genre of the UK Garage scene. It doesnt have the slighest thing to do with this band, it's the opposite side of the musical spectrum which is why you wont find it in a source. --neon white talk 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the album you ignoramus. This is one of the songs from the album: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPS05Fbg84c . That's not dubstep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thats a commercial for an album and in no way typical of their music in general and No, that isnt dubstep. Regardless wikipedia is not based on unimportant individual editors personal opinions. Editors opinions are irrelevant. See

WP:V. --neon white talk 10:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it is a commerical, and the music is a song off the new album. I have heard the majority of the songs from the album, and dubstep plays a big part in the new album, so Common Dreads should have dubstep as a genre. "Editors' opinions are irrelevent"... except yours I presume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to check out [dubstep]] and do further research into the genre for your own knowledge. This band and their music has no relation to the dubstep genre or scene which is why it cannot be sourced. --neon white talk 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done,and I still believe dubstep to be part of the new album. It also looks as though others agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.17.127 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time it doesnt matter what you or anyone else thinks only reliable sources. --neon white talk 09:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you contribution on

That's ok, just don't keep reverting each other. When a consensus is reached it will be resolved. --neon white talk 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your comment on the talk page has been interpreted as justification to wait for an intervention by User:Kuru. BTW I make that 6 reverts of my edit by the same person, 3 under Binarygal and 3 under the IP 86.167.136.66.—Ashleyvh (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is and resolve the conflict first. --neon white talk 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Considering that Binarygal does not yet appear to be taking the WQA advice and 6,620 words have already been exchanged on the talk page about removing 4 external links, that I genuinely thought would not be that controversial (could not resist doing a word count), perhaps you can advise when and if an alternative resolution process might be appropriate to try as I'm not experienced in using them. In the meantime I'll do my best to keep to a light touch.—Ashleyvh (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent post from Binarygal is positively logical. Hopefully there will be no problem with satisfactory resolution even if the WQA stays stale. Thank you for your calm comments during the discussion.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Whilst I can see the logic of suggesting that Scramblecase is a sock of Collect (not saying the case is proven, but there is a reasonable cause to suspect), I'm less clear as to the potentiall link to Transity. Could you elaborate in the case. Otherwise, I suggest that we proceed with an investigation of just two editors. Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Swoopo. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a dispute about an entry on

Thanks ... but we're still not sure if that was an agreement. A

Wikipedia:Administrators, who could impose blocks, I suppose, I don't think that will be the main method used.) Can you clarify on the talk page if you agree to participate, or at least abide by whatever decision is reached? --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I thought about that, but decided it would be better to go through them on a case-by-case basis, since some of them might be able to be rescued if references for it are found establishing notability. tempodivalse [☎] 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Normally I do a direct move, but this one was over a redirect and I know I can't do that myself. So, since you've templated the page, do I need to do anything? I moved the talk page too...

Much obliged, thanks for fixing my mistake and letting me know about it!

_complex 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I undid your last contribution on this article, and I just wanted to raise a couple issues here. I looked at the linked source, and while it's possible I'm missing something because of the limitations of the Google book view, I see what the source is saying as being quite different from what you added to the article. The impression that I get from the source is of a diversity of views on abortion, almost all of which stem from the root view that abortion is a bad thing and to be avoided, and that it is personally a negative deed for the person performing it. I'm particularly leery of seeing additions that say things like 'the Buddhist religion believes x', given the diversity of the Buddhist tradition, both in terms of national variations and doctrinal views. There was also this: "As Buddhists do not believe in imposing one's moral values on another, the religion generally does not support state restrictions on abortion nor does it specifically forbid it.", which is sourced, but which is contradicted by the book linked in the later addition which describes Buddhists and Buddhist groups as lobbying the government to not liberalize abortion restrictions on the grounds that it would make abortion more popular. I think it would be better to indicate the actual regional views reported in the Buddhist Ethics book rather than attempting to synthesize views that are meant to apply to the entire tradition- the book itself, for instance, highlights differences between Thai and Sri Lankan attitudes, despite the fact that both countries are traditional strongholds of Theravada Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contadictions could be noted but i didnt want an article on ethics to become an article on legality of abortion in countries with buddhist populations. Plus we cannot really say that the policies of governments of buddhist countries such as Thailand and Sri Lankan are Buddhist beliefs. It seems to be getting out of the scope of the topic. The passage " Rather than condemn abortion, the Buddhist religion believes in dealing with and reducing the circumstances which lead women to abortion." is supported in the book, on p332. I think the article needs to reflect more the idea that abortion is not forbidden in buddhism but it's negatively precieved on the basis that it is taking a life and that choices should be made on that understanding. --neon white talk 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author there is reporting the opinion of Ratanakul, whose remarks specify Thai Buddhists rather than Buddhists generally. The section on Sri Lanka, for instance, notes that there are "more frequently expressed objection[s] to abortion" and that

Sarvodaya Shramadana, a Buddhist organization, is "radically opposed", and the section on Tibet indicates that attitudes toward abortion among Tibetans are very negative. Going from the source saying 'someone reports that Thai Buddhists feel this way' to 'the Buddhist religion believes this' is going beyond what the source says. I dug out my copy of Introduction to Buddhist ethics, and the impression it gives is very different overall as well; the early section mentions, for instance, that a monk will be expelled for being involved in procuring or causing an abortion, and that destroying a fetus is generally regarded as being equal to violating the first precept, that is, killing a living being. It's worth noting that even in the precepts and the monastic code the word 'forbidden' is never used; rather, the consequences for committing an action are just indicated. So, technically, you're not forbidden from killing people in Buddhism; you're just made to understand that it's a terrible idea. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for adding the bit about traditional Buddhism, but aren't you going to back it up with some citations? TruthIIPower (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. See the BBC source. --neon white talk 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neon.

You don't need any particular editor to start mediation, i've given my third opinion and whether i comment on a mediation case will depend on time and whether i can be bothered. Ultimately the dispute has been so fragmented (perhaps deliberately so) that it's hard to say what specifically would be mediated. Informal mediation should be the first step. --neon white talk 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted some of your recent edits per

I posted an entry on the talk page prior to the tag, please look closer in future and do not remove tags until issues are considered resolved. --neon white talk 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has been discussed quite recently. Unless you have something new to add I don't think the tag is justified, and you didn't justify the tag you simply proposed a move (to where?) Thanks. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm sure you're acting in good faith. I've mentioned this on

WP:FTN, and I hope I've not annoyed or insulted you. Best, Verbal chat 12:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the discussion is on again and that's why the tag is there. In fact my points are not based on the commonality of the phrase as previous discussion have centered on but on neutrality and the inherent negative value in the current title. There are more than a few issues with neutrality in this article. --neon white talk 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that you forgot to put the AFD tag on this article when you nominated it for deletion. This means that the article's regular editors might not have had any clue that it was nominated. However, since it had been listed for 10 days with no other "delete" !votes I closed it but please try to make sure that the tag is added to articles you nominate in the future. You might want to consider using

FYI, it's just been closed "keep" by Stifle --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that there is no such thing as a Jewish nation is extremely antisemitic and defamatory. Drone2Gather (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isnt, it's simple statement of fact. There is no such soveriegn nation unless you count Isreal in which case nationality is Isreali. As far as we are concerned nationality refers only to the soveriegn state of which a person is a citizen of. --neon white talk 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not referring to the existence of a state. The Jewish nation has been around for 4,000 years. Care to prove me wrong? Please, no weasel wording, just address my question: is there or is there not a Jewish nation? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality officially refers to state citizenship. See

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) As the USA has a very strong national indentity, individual ethnic and religious groups etc are not considered nations. --neon white talk 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please answer my question directly, either with "the Jewish nation exists" or "the Jewish nation does not exist." Drone2Gather (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is irrelevant. I've pointed out the relevant style guideline. --neon white talk 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, a moment ago you claimed that it is a mere fact statement. Surely you will have no problem repeating it as such. You've pointed out the definition of "nationality" or "sovereign nation." Does the Jewish nation exist or does it not? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of fact that wikipedia does not consider ethnicity, religion or "quasi-historical communities" to be revelant in terms of nationality. End of discussion. Neither wikipedia nor my talk page is not a

WP:SOAPBOX to promote your personal point of view on this subject. --neon white talk 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem fine with your own point of view as for "quasi-historical" communities though. Your wrote on the talk page that "we can be pretty certain [Jewish] isn't a nation." Why is it that you're right to defame a nation noted for its neverending struggle against haters worldwide, but I'm wrong to call your comment what it is – antisemitic and defamatory? Drone2Gather (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:CIVIL, if you keep up editing with a serious personal agenda i'm sure you'll find out. If you want to voice your religious/ethnic beliefs get a blog. This is an encyclopedia. It's based on verifiable facts not your personal theories. "quasi-historical" is a quote, hence it being in quotation remarks. Jewishness has never been considered a nation because a very loose historical link is the only slightly defined link and even that is widely speculated. Of course there has to be some link, but most such as politics, religion and ethnicity are only important to certain distinct groups. Who is a Jew? might be of interest to you. --neon white talk 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I know what that article is referring to, and there is no relevance to the current discussion. You are attacking a nation by denying its existence. I am trying to protect my own people from bogus claims. The article, to which you have linked, has nothing to do with this subject.

To quote

WP:CIVIL

.

Finally, the Law of Return is based upon being identified with the Jewish nation. On the other hand, I would not agree with "ethnicity" as even here in Israel, there are several ethnic groups within the Jewish population – Eastern European, Western European, Arabian, Ethiopian, Indian etc. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you and left a note here. Thanks for your work on the wiki. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back. Please read

Wikipedia:D#Partial_title_matches. --neon white talk 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

None of the sources are significant and demonstrate any notability. The consensus was to redirect. use the talk page to discuss any changes. Insignificant Tv roles have absolutely no bearing whatsover on this. He fails

WP:ENT. --neon white talk 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tv roles of Shannon Leto aren't insignificat!! You, neonwhite, are very very insignificat!--87.6.183.202 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:MUSIC. you are killing me!! don't revert my changes, because Shannon Leto and Tomo Miličević have to stay on wikipedia!!--87.6.183.202 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Other stuff exists is not an excuse, read the notability guidelines and if you want to question the consensus do so on the talk page. --neon white talk 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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(s) by adding your comments 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your views and time regarding the issue I was involved with on the Wikiquette alerts page. Shinerunner (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error in Ballad of Lucy Jordan article

The error was caused by your edits. I've pointed it out to you, but since you caused it, it's your responsibility to correct it. --

^{talk email} 07:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No it isn't. It's any editors job to edit any article. Stop being petty and do it yourself. --neon white talk 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cord (band)

You are aware that the articles says that they have two chart singles in the UK? Might wanna withdraw this one before

you-know-what happens. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Unverified dubious claims. --neon white talk 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so dubious about them? The chart singles are easy to verify. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

acharts.us is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Dismiss it altogether. --neon white talk 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODCHARTS seems to disagree. Also, the official UK Singles Charts archives only goes back to 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't a chart and there is absolutely no indication of verifiability. You can get further archives but they are not usually available to the general public. Why are you discussing this here? --neon white talk 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapcore

The

talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

A quick look through the sources shows only one that even comes close to make a description of a genre of music. One actually describes 311 as a rapcore band, one is a link to the Cotton Mouth Kings bio on all music definitely not "rapcore" as described by you or the article. Lets see another one is a link to rapmetal on all music which makes no mention of rapcore. And for the most part the rest of them are either broken or make no mention at all of rapcore. Ridernyc (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what i said in the proposal. --neon white talk 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. There is significant coverage of the genre cited in the article. Neither of you are even making an attempt to pay attention. This is bad editing, and the nomination clearly is bad faith. (

talk) 12:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

There is very little significant coverage related to this neologism and i am posting a warning about assuming good faith which you have not done. --neon white talk 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DTTR

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Seicer (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i didnt and i will template the regulars if i please. --neon white talk 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious "Warnings" to Admins

We have enough people wasting time and bandwidth by complaining every time someone makes a comment they perceive as an insult. Please do not add to this by chasing down administrators, who are generally considered to be at least as conversant with the rules as other editors, who have made comments on my talk page, which are not about you, and issuing "Warnings"[7] about their clearly rhetorical musings. Note that while incivility is discouraged,

harassment is a blockable offense. Please feel free to ask any questions here or make any comments here, I will watchlist your talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Behavioral guidelines exists for a very good reason, as a collaborative project wikipedia would fail without them, they apply to user talk pages as well as article talk pages, it doesnt matter who the personal attacks are aimed at, they are all damaging to the project, you are not exempt and neither is any other editor. Dismissing what was a nasty personal attack as a "rhetorical musings" is ludicrous (this is not the first time you have been dismissive about such attacks). While i understand that from time to time most editors make mistakes and may become incivil during difficult communications, your attitude towards other editors in this instance has not been great and it could br improved. Nobody is here to judge but to help editors improve. Please remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not failed to assume good faith, please remember to

assume the assumption of good faith - or failing that, read the lingo entry

for AGF.

Whether you approve of my manners or not is immaterial, however, the post was certainly rhetorical, and I know this because Seicer confirmed it was so intended. As I have no reason to accuse him of lying, I prefer to AGF and believe him. All that said, I will again note that the key point here is that you have now been warned for harassment, and I suggest you discontinue such behaviors, as it can lead to blocking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anno 1404

Hello Neon White,

I posted this thing trying to be as objective as possible. I thought that : - mentionning the excellent critics the game has obtained - linking to reviews from amazon stating large concerns about drm - citing as many sources as possible for those problemsthis would ensure that this writing was as objective as possible. I haven't invented the reviews on amazon.com, amazon.de, amazon.co.uk and amazon.fr, neither have I written all posts on various forums about this problem. I thought it would be fair to mention them, as it is fair to say that this game is otherwise acclaimed by majors game reviewers. If you think that parts of my edit are biased, despite my will to make it objective, then fine, just modify them. But I really think that there are too many negative reviews on amazon&co, contrasting with the general excellent critics this game obtained, to simply delete this point. It would be another kind of unobjectivity to just delete this paragraph, as it is FACTUAL that the game obtain really bad reviews on commercial websites from angry customers. I'm personnaly a fan of the serie, and have already bought the game, so I don't think that I should be accused of beeing partial/boycott prone.

Anything added to wikipedia requires reliable sources, these cannot include self-published sources. Remember this is an encylopedia, not a review site, we are only interested in the views of professionals, bellyaching from random amazon customer's are of no importance to an encyclopedia. Unless a reliable sources mentions costumers reaction it is

original research. --neon white talk 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

MCR

Hey. Left a message at the MCR talk page for you. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Trohman

If you're going to redirect Joe Trohman to Fall Out Boy without trying to preserve any of the content, then you might as well send the Trohman article to AFD. A redirect without a merge is a de facto deletion anyway, and an AFD discussion will hopefully get more people involved. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing worth keeping on the page. A redirect is not a deletion the page and it's history is maintained. An afd is unnecessary for a simple merge. --neon white talk 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think readers are interested in having some background information on the guy? It's all sourced. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its well sourced and non-trivial then add it. --neon white talk 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'd rather not merge it to the band's article, because that would look awkward. I think the Trohman information is fine where it is. I'd only merge as an alternative to deleting the information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, I started an RFC at Trohman's talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

It is my belief that you need to learn some compassion becuase you are generally not very nice and often come across as a dick. You dont seem to have many friends so I was wondering if you wanted to be one? =] Gamer9678 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response?

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

Update on Mysteriou Universe

RELIABLE SOURCES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE PAGE

THESE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM

WP:N. The previous AfD

NEWS OUTLETS SOURCES : PRWEB[8]

NEWS.COM.AU [9]

They clearly stand for

WP:N

. Regarding PRWEB: News outlet that works with distribution partners such as Yahoo! News, Google News. Regarding NEWS.COM.AU: A widely known Australian news outlet.

DestroHolmes failure to see the changes may not be the most reliable point of view given to the fact that his edits and alleged clean up selectively erased the reliable sources. Please note that his edits worked more as surreptitious academic protectionism than acceptable encyclopedic criteria. What kind of concensus can we have if only DestroHolmes makes all the decisions?

Regarding recent edits by

WP:NPOV, nor citation problems and rather it was reverted (diffs here) because it had been consistently suppressed by DestroHolmes

. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not arbitrary deletion by one person such as DestroHolmes who seems to be defending Benjamin Grundy's interests instead of respecting encyclopedic guidelines.

I want to publicly denounce DestroHolmes and his attempts to suppress this page and its complaints of online fraud despite the addition of reliable sources. Furthermore, I want to publicly question DestroHolmes's real identity as a a possible acquintance of Benjamin Grundy or as Benjamin Grundy himself.

The edit war with Tonkacres/Zhenboy/Destroholmes was deliberately started when Benjamin Grundy and Aaron were sent private messages on facebook notifying them about the changes on Wikipedia and in less than an hour (Australian time) the edit war had started.

DestroHolmes then proceeded to block the accounts and then acted as expected: started protecting Benjamin Grundy.

The page was then subsequently changed by DestroHolmesin a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the evidence of possible online fraud in the section "Breach of contract" DestroHolmes was clearly manipulated to show how biased his views were.

The main purpose of the edit war was to draw DestroHolmes into making arbitrary decisions and cast light into his surreptitious academic protectionism and abuse of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines by blocking users and making personal decisions to delete a page he has a conflict of interest with. Unfortunately for DestroHolmes his editing history clearly show his protectionism towards a podcaster involved with online fraud. Should wikipedia rely on DestroHolmes as a supporter of online fraud?

Please feel free to compare his edits since now it is too late for him to change them or cover his tracks.

This page should not be deleted because it has consistent relevance to the Wikiproject Podcasting as well as present and future Podcasters interested in avoiding the same pitfalls Benjamin Grundy went through. Benjamin Grundy did not respect acceptable business practices and all his listeners were lost due to accusations of Online fraud and numerous complaints.

Lastly, allow me to ask a logical question: Which one has more value?

A)Mysterious Universe and its possible case of online fraud where victims stated the events. B)An inane internet meme such as "Raptor Jesus"

Both are facing deletion yet only one has relevance to Newmedia and Podcasting.

If an article such as "Raptor Jesus" finds space in Wikipedia where does wikipedia take its cues for credibility? Furthermore, does keeping "Raptor Jesus" as an article make Wikipedia different from Uncyclopedia's "Raptor Jesus" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Absolutemetazero

Help with Indie music scene

Since you cleaned out the article I have been watching it and keeping it clean. Some actual improvement has taken place tiny but progress. Well now someone has shown up replacing all the old content with insanely bad sourcing. I've tried explaining things to him but he has no clue how to source information User_talk:94.210.222.154, and I'm just going to end up in a constant edit war with him. Ridernyc (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TotalPoliticsCover.jpg

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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue tags for

Crawdaddy!

Please respond at

Talk:Crawdaddy! in the talk page section created for discussing the issue tags. I think one or more issues may have been corrected since the tagging and it is unclear to me what specifically is still considered problematic and why. I'm willing to do some improvement but there needs to be some useful comment on the talk page to help with that. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

AfD nomination of List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

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(s) by adding your comments 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

File source problem with File:Kendrick.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Kendrick.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

unreferencedBLP

}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Brian Brivati - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featherstone RUFC

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the

James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]