User talk:Hello Control/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hello Control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Thanks for the revert to my bots report page, its much appreciated :) Lloydpick 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• My pleasure. --Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Request - Hello Hello Talk, My contribution: A Rose for Emily - Discussion Questions. I hope this entry will not be removed again because I certainly believe that this link is useful for wikipedia visitors (especially for students who study American literature) and includes original work. I have difficulty understanding how some contributors delete entries without consulting the contributor. The fact that the link gives access to a blog should not mean that it has no place in wikipedia. The blogger is a university instructor. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literature2007 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your adding links for a website (alinihatekenblog.wordpress.com) to numerous articles is categorized by Wikipedia as linkspam and has been reverted. Please do not continue adding links to this site. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Control. You have removed my contributions again. I refuse to contribute to wikipedia again. I think wikipedia is becoming a site of power struggle. You should have examined the content more closely before removing the links. I have explored the questions in my classes and they have worked really well. Anyway, I am not going to waste my time contributing to wikipedia anymore. It can be all yours. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literature2007 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry to hear that you have given up on Wikipedia so easily. However, since you only seem interested in promoting your blog, we will likely manage to suffer the loss without much pain. (I presume it's your blog because the IP address you initially edited from is at Sabanci University, which is where the owner of that blog is employed, according to the blog's "About" page.) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hello Control, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, wow—thanks! I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'll have to read up on it before trying it out. Best, —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! Acalamari 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of Rey Casas the best way will be to send it to afd -- if the people there agree it is a hoax we can then deal more easily with further re-creation of the article. DGG (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that gender-neutral pronouns may seem awkward, and are not typically found in everyday life for speakers of modern english, however there is legal precedent for their use. In this case, the user complained that references to gender were unnecessarily providing personal information about them. Please see Gender-neutral pronoun. The way that you edited it is also perfectly acceptable. There are many other edits I made that were for the same reason.... check my edit history if you want to go and prettify those edits as well. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understood your edit but it made for a VERY awkward read, almost impenetrable (certainly for the casual reader). I don't think I "prettified" it, I made it legible (I also caught a "her" that you missed). I didn't mean to be rude with my edit summary, although in retrospect I suppose I was. I apologize for clicking "Save page" a little too quickly. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on the link -- allmusic.com kept crashing Firefox, and I grabbed the wrong URL. I've added the correct links on the talk page, including one showing that they charted. I'll remove the hoax tag again (assuming that's okay with you), and add some refs to the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, that's totally cool. I'm glad to hear that it's actually not a hoax. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the notability question because there is a sufficient amount of notable sources to verify the band's existence and legitimacy.--Destroy1998 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is questionable but I won't revert your edit. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the notability question because, again, there are enough notable sources. I also changed the capitalization because that is the proper way to spell DiGiTs, which is a proper noun.--Destroy1998 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners, follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" i.e. capitalize the first letter and the rest are lower-case. As with A.M., I disagree with you regarding notability but will not revert your edit. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work (in progress...) on Jorge Ferreira! Besides de notability, credibility and others issues of that sort, I do belive that the article is too long. By the way, and of course you can take my statements as my own bias, this Ferreira is almost completely unknown in Portugal. Oh! And 81.65.196.240 has just erased some of your tags. Keep up your good work! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been in kind of a "holding pattern" over the long weekend, replacing tags as needed. When I get a longer stretch of time where I can edit (possibly later today), I'm going to start slimming it down and getting rid of the year-by-year entries so it's more in keeping with Wikipedia format. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the information in the section that I added is true. I work in the industry and - in fact - my radio station was one of those that got hit with a Cease and Desist letter. Jive had no plans to release the record until at least mid-March, prior to Polow Da Don leaking it to the station in Atlanta. But, once he leaked the record, radio began playing it (quite frequently, in a few cases) and Jive had to hurry the release of a mastered version and they moved up the adds date. If you'd like, I can provide you with Mediabase chart statistics and other information to back up the information.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/rastabolio/SCREENCAP-MEDIABASE-USHERfeatYOUNGJ.jpg

Thanks!--InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning whether or not the information is true (I have 20 years in the industry under my belt so I know how things go). The fact remains that without a verifiable reference from a reliable source to back it up, it shouldn't be added to the article. That you saw the C&D notice makes that part original research; much of the rest is [speculation (informed speculation but speculation nonetheless). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge the word "research," as used in this instance. It's not as if I'm telling a story about how I think things happened, or should have happened. It is a fact that Jive served C&D letters on this record, due to A) the version of the record that was leaked was an unmastered copy and B) it was well in advance of their plans for this project.

However, the fact of this situation remains that you do have a valid point, but maybe not under the terms that you're presenting it. I will concede that the information, while interesting, may not be all that relevant to anyone reading the article that is not familiar with our industry.

That being said, I would still like to see the information left in the article, BUT I will support whatever decision that you - as the more senior to Wikipedia between the two of us - feel is in the best interests of the article and the encyclopedia as a whole.

Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that you're interpreting facts here (see WP:OR for what I meant by "original research"). The bottom line is that you're adding information that has not been published in a reliable source thus can't be proven beyond your claim that you saw the C&D notice (again, I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you can't prove it; tangentially, you can only say for certain that your radio station got the C&D notice). This fails WP:V and although you're not reaching a conclusion it's still based on what you know not what you can show. Surely something like this will get a mention soon in Billboard or FMQB or some such industry publication at which point it can be added to the article. Thanks for understanding. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that and support your decision. I would expect to see that information hit a verifiable source sometime in the near future. If it doesn't, oh well, right?  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like answering every time I see your talk link! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• : ) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you put it up for deletion even after i posted a reference?Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• The reference you added shows that Fat Joe said he was going to make a mixtape; that doesn't make the article notable. WP:MUSIC says that most mixtapes are not notable—you'll need to find a lot more references than one mention to show notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Chasse and comment, if you care to. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone objects, let me know; otherwise my only intention is to hurry up the decision either way. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't expect anyone will complain but it's always a possibility. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this. That article needs a speedy. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It figures; I had it pegged for a joke of some sort. Boy, he sure showed us, huh? (Or, alternately: Boy, somebody sure showed him, huh?) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

;) And so fast! You must have it watchlisted. Peace, delldot talk 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I spied it on the new music article list, had my CSD for non-notability declined, started to list it for AfD and discovered it had already had one. But whatever works, right? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My bad. Thanks for letting me know. --FSX-2007 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. I think everyone around here learns something new every day; I know I do. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you can if like; however, this is an album from a definitively notable band, and it was decided that there was enough verifiable information to discount WP:CRYSTAL. GlassCobra 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I was thinking more along the lines of "notability is not inherited". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from A.WOLF, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Addendum: There was an AfD for the article in May of 2006 which it passed. -- Atama^chat 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the head's up, embarrassed that I missed that. Back to AfD, then. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt know. But I really want the arrictle to stay. Piazzajordan2 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you can think of a good argument as to why the article meets WP:MUSIC, you should weigh in at the AfD. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another editor removed your {{prod}} on Go DJ!. Do you plan on taking this to AfD? If you do, I'll vote to delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've been following through with AfDs on all the future-album prods I've been dropping, except when references are added to show notability, which never actually happens. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Now that I take a look at the improvements, it seems ok for the moment. The references aren't the greatest but aren't unreasonable (and at least they're recent) and a second single just dropped this week. As long as speculation is kept in check, I don't think it's too bad. Of course, if six months from now there's still no scheduled release date, I'll revisit my thinking. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to hold fairly rigorous standards for unreleased albums, but this one is definitely notable. Spellcast (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Future albums are fine as long as it's reliably sourced. But unfortunately people tend to add cruft like rumoured tracks. If you want to start a wikiproject, WP:COUNCIL/P would be the place to start. There's no guarantee I'll be deeply involved, but I do support removing unsourced albums when I see them. Spellcast (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer. And I agree, correctly sourced articles are fine. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message! I am very interested in cleaning up wikipedia. And removing out of date tags is very much a part of that. I will certainly take a look at the project and remove any out of date tags i find whilst i'm doing my counter vandalism patrolling. Thanks and have a nice day. TheProf | Talk 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the page Eating's Not Cheating (2005), which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of it is a recently-created redirect page resulting from an implausible typo or misnomer, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not recently-created and has a page history for a merged page which must be preserved for GFDL attribution reasons. If you still want the page to be deleted, please use the WP:RFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doy! I knew that—my bad. Thanks for reminding me; I got a little too "housecleaner-y". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He said there is over 90 minutes and not much they wanted to cut down, so if that is the case it would have to be a double album if they chose not to cut a lot down.--E tac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Which is original research on your part. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is original research that 90 minutes will not fit on one disc?--E tac (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No. It is original research to say that they might put out a double disc. You're extrapolating from what was actually said. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Saying that IF NO MATERIAL IS CUT FROM THE OVER 90 MINUTES that they have it would result in their first double album is hardly original research, but a fact.--E tac (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • First off, settle down; there's no need to get excited. Secondly, you seem to have a difficult time seeing the difference between reporting what was said and drawing a conclusion from what was said. Just let it go—it's fine the way it is. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has previously been involved in WP:MUSIC policy discussion. I would much appreciate your input on this proposal if possible. --neonwhite user page talk 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You recently undid an edit to Nicole Wray remiving an AfD template, with the edit summary "—rv AfD tagging with no follow-through" Since the article is currently listed at AfD, and because it is inappropriate to remove an AfD without it being closed, I have rolled back this edit. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's weird—the editor who placed the tag never opened an AfD. (20 seconds later) OK, I just checked and I see that the AfD was opened by an editor but the tag was placed on the article by an IP; my mistake. I guess it doesn't matter anyway since the AfD was almost immediately closed as a bad-faith nomination. Still, I'll be more careful next time. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The top part where the infoBox is, I am COMEPLETELY innocent I don't know how the fuck that happened, everything else is my work, I DO NOT vandelise! YaBoiKrakerz

• That's cool, I know I've seen you around so I didn't figure you had done it intentionally but I did want to bring it to your attention. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly known for editing my favorite rap artists articles (Like The Game and Too Short), my favorite rock bands (like RATM, DragonForce and Sum 41), videogame characters (like Mario and CJ) and my favorite movies like 300.

The funny thing is, is that I saw 300 not 2 hours ago... my goal is watch 300 300 times, LOLOLOL!!! YaBoiKrakerz

• Right on. I do a mix of editing things I'm interested in and housekeeping-type stuff (it's been mostly housekeeping lately). Good luck with your 300 aspirations—it's important to set goals for yourself! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw 300 two times, just 298 more to go... -_-. YaBoiKrakerz
  • HA! Saw it two more times, now I got 296 more times!! ^_^ YaBoiKrakerz
    • Keep reachin' for those stars. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Thanx for your support! YaBoiKrakerz

You didn't mess up, I revised it then added the ref to it. It wasn't added to the page before. lol.Y5nthon5a (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. Sneaky. Well, thanks for adding the reference. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would aprreciated if you didn't spread lies about me. I have told you that Make It Hot is certified gold. My new album will coming in spring. Elektric Blue was released only in Japan, and I leaked Lovechild myself. Also I have my InDepenDance Day: Volume Two mixtape following up the release of the album. Nicole Wray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.80.193 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't spread any lies about anyone. The problem is that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and backed up by reliable sources so, for example, if a gold record doesn't show up in the RIAA certification database, we can't include it in the article. If you are Nicole, maybe you could talk to your publicist and have him/her give you copies of all the press you've received and you could pass the information along here. Good luck. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hello Control is sockpuppet of User talk:Cloudz679. I don't not need proof to back this up, thats the truth. Also, you don't talk to my favorite artist that way because what she said was true. On top of that, you need to check your own damn self because you ain't all you think you are. Now you can hello that Cloudz679. 4.129.66.200 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• And I nominate articles for deletion as Hello Control and then !vote against their deletion as Cloudz679 just to make it appear that I am two different people. Man, I am so clever! But you're even more clever because you saw through my ruse. I tip my hat to you, clever person. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		Awarded for exceptional work "cleaning out the cruft" from numerous album articles. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check your facks before making comments about artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.85.123 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Which artist's "facks" am I mistaken about? Please enlighten me. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Crybaby" by Mariah and Snoop was #1 sales and R&B/hip hop single the week of jan 20, 2001. I got all facts from: (www.billboard.com.. search damizza) if you add up all the weeks charts including whats on my label i'm over 500 weeks on the charts. closer to 700. And, the Chuck Phillips article is all over the internet. "Airplay raises disclosure issue" was the LA times article by chuck phillips. And pls take that picture off! Do you want a sales breakdown?? -Damizza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonborne (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, component charts like the sales ones are only used if the song doesn't chart on the main chart (see WP:CHARTS for more info). I'm not the one that put the picture up in the first place. Do you have a better one we can use? Stuff like "over 500 weeks on the charts" is unencylopedic and more like press release-type writing and doesn't belong here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • all good thank you for your time. I removed the picture. But it popped back up. how do i put one up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.86.99 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • To upload a picture, go here and follow the instructions. Public domain is best but copyrighted pix can be used, it's just more complicated is all. I don't have a lot of experience adding photos but if you have any questions I'll try my best to answer. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the IP editor was trying to replace a single section while keeping the potential BLP issues blanked. It looks like you've restored all of the content that led to their block yesterday. I could be wrong, I haven't looked all that closely, but you might want to double check your latest reversion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The version I reverted to was a more recent redaction that I executed yesterday. The original redaction was maybe a little bit overboard, deleteing more than really necessary. I also "signed" unsigned comments that were redacted so anyone who just has to know what was removed can go find the diff. Really, that talk page is a mess and should be archived or something; so little of the content belongs on an article's talk page. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please resolve this. [1] -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I want to be in the middle of this? I didn't even start the reversion thing. The editor is evading a block and violating WP:BLP. Do you have any suggestions? The IP has had the policy explained to them repeatedly and yet they still claim to not understand. I'm all ears. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but be quietly. An administrator blocked the page, so any IP contributes. -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, maybe merging might be a better idea. I've been looking for some good sources to keep it notable, but can't seem to find any. However, I believe the article is important to the artists history, so it would be better to merge it rather than delete it completely.LoveLaced (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any content that is verifiable and from a reliable source can be added to the Fefe Dobson article—no permission necessary. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo Tony/Control, I have responded to your request on my talkpage. Incidentally, there is plenty of coverage of the topic in reliable sources easily accessible through Google News. (http://news.google.ru/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Sunday+Love%22+fefe). Regards, Skomorokh 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm typing as fast as I can! :-) Shocking Blue (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone previously involved in a discussion re this issue, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Release_dates_listed_pre-release. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for the notice. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied from AfD discussion) Most of his credits seem to be his own material. The only ones that I can see that were singles are "Oh Carolina" by Vince Gill and "That's Enough of That" by Mila Mason; the rest seem to have been cut either by Albright himself or by non-notable artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• !voted. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that I considered myself to be a "musical scholar." I simply said that I've been in the music industry for seven years, including the last year as a Music Director for a CHR/Rhythmic radio station, and I've never heard the term used. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you were unsure of the term, you should have done some research first, or dropped a note at WP:MN. "Conscious hip hop" is a term that has been in use for well over a decade. Wikipedia is loaded to the gills with made-up genres and sub-sub-genres but just because you hadn't come across the term in your limited mainstream experience does not mean it's not notable. There's a great big world of music out there and if you judge it all from the perspective of a pitifully narrow-minded and short-sighted mainstream radio station (that's not a crack at your station—it's a crack at all mainstream stations) then you're doing Wikipedia a disservice. Sorry if this diatribe come across as harsh but I'm very passionate about music—it's my life—and you struck a nerve. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This about the Hi-Fly article. How is not the SoundClick page a reliable source to put JD Era on his production credits when you can go there and listen to the track and even hear JD Era mentioning his name multiple times? Also why would you take off his website's discography as a reference now when after many of your earlier edits you left it there? Why have you put "citation needed" on couple specific artists and not after the sentence or the paragraph? Seems very inconsistent. I admit that I'm new to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingi (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both SoundClick and the Hi-Fly website are primary sources (i.e. the subject of the article controls what is there) so it's not a very reliable source. For example, you could put on there that you produced a number one single for Michael Jackson but that wouldn't make it true. Similarly, the SoundClick song link is unreliable. If it appeared on the artist's own website (JD Era, not Hi-Fly), that would be reliable (because it's the artist's own website saying "this is my song"). Primary sources are ok for some things (biographical info, etc.) but other types of info should be confirmed with other sources. The citation requests are on the artists' names because there is partial sourcing (some artists have references, others don't). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. That helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool man, glad I stepped up to the plate when I did! I saw the proposal thingie a while back, but I didn't notice the actual page until today. I was kind of wondering what the hold up was... Anyways, hopefully we can get this bad boy off the ground soon. Still alot of technical behind-the scenes type stuff to work on, but feel free to start tagging discogs with {{WikiProject Discographies}}, and inviting people to join (no fancy template for that). This should be a good little project, me thinks. Drewcifer (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is actually perfect timing—I've been paring down my watchlist over the last week or so and once a few more things get settled, I'll have plenty of time to devote here. I'm moving soon so I'm not allowed to spend much time on WP this weekend, however. This will be the first WikiProject I've really participated in so feel free to drop suggestions. Thanks again for picking up the ball and really running with it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to notify you that there is no need for speedy deletion of the page Frankee discography. AFD would be more suitable. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Spoke to this comment (left in an edit summary prior to this message) on the user's talk page. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well you know what I mean it should be discussed during AFD. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you just leave my articles alone. They are perfectly fine, have sources and they are real singles. Just because they are not well known does not change anything. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please refer to WP:OWN. You have a lot to learn if you want to ever become an admin. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've interacted with both Exclusive474 and Surfer-boy94. I agree that they seem to have similar interests, but I truly doubt they are socks. What specifically makes you think that they are the same person?Kww (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first three suspected sock accounts (Piece-of-Me-08, Insomniatic_999, and Motion-In-The-Ocean) were all created the same day within an 18-minute period (06:06, 22 January 2008, 06:15, 22 January 2008, 06:24, 22 January 2008) and all made their first non-userspace edits !voting in the same AfD—for an article created by Surfer-boy94 (06:11, 22 January 2008, 06:17, 22 January 2008, 06:26, 22 January 2008, ). Exclusive474 was created the following day (00:38, 23 January 2008), and while it did not head directly to the AfD, it made 7 clearly experienced edits (one edit summary indicating that the editor is in Australia [2]) before !voting at the AfD 02:51, 23 January 2008. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello i just want to comment on the recent accusations of sockpuppetry. They are wrong and I admit that there is alot of evidence linking our accounts together, but Exclusive_474 is my brothers account who uses it sometimes, however he is not very experienced with wikipedia. As for Piece-of-Me-08 he is my best mate who is also inexperienced to wikipedia, but he wants to get better, and as for Insomniatic_999 I honestly do not have a clue who that is. The other account Motion-In-The-Ocean is my cousin, who uses it whenever he is at my house. I hope you have the strength to believe me. Thanks, Surfer-boy94 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets and the section that follows, "Roommates and sharing an IP address". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am Exclusive_474 and I do not know how to do things on wikipedia properly. I don't really know much about wikipedia and my brother told me about sockpuppetry and how he is being accused of it. It is not right, as I am honestly Surfer-boy94's brother. Exclusive 474 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have reviewed that, so now do you believe me that I am not a sockpuppet? But I just don't see how fair it is for me to be responsible for my family and friends actions on wikipedia, because they use it on the same computer. Thanks. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello I have heard that I am being accused of being a sockpuppet. This is untrue information, as I am Surfer-boy94's second cousin. We do not really see much of each other and I only go on this computer when my family is at his house. He probably hasn't mentioned me as we do not see much of each other and he does not get on with me at all, and by the way sometimes my friend also uses wikipedia on this computer on her user: Insomniatic_999. I hope this helps. Girls alouds biggest fan (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts to improve the article University of Dayton Ghetto, you seem to have overlooked the fact that the list of special interest houses you removed was both sourced and highly wikilinked. However, there is a discussion concerning its removal on the talk page. You are more than welcome to discuss the removal of the section with the other editors on the page, but please do not make large changes to a stable article without prior discussion. In the meantime, I have reverted your removal of the section. Thank you. Newsboy85 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "discussion" appeared to consist of one person objecting to the list of houses being restricted to frats and sororities, and you, the apparent "owner" of the article, saying you had been considering removing the list. Your comment—the last on the subject—was made at the end of February; I'd say the discussion is cold and dead at this point. Since no one had argued in favor of keeping the list, I removed it. And, despite your claims to the contrary, the list is not referenced (a few external links notwithstanding). I reiterate what I said in my edit summary—the list is unencyclopedic, unsourced, and crufty. There is nothing that indicates that those houses are notable in the least. It's really more of a directory of the houses of organizations in the area. That the organizations are wikilinked is irrelevant. I strongly urge you to undo your reversion of my edit. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I do agree with you that the list should probably not be there. I will also admit that I was surprised to see another active editor that was not vandalism, as I have been the only editor working on the article for quite a while, though it was started well before I was even a wikipedian. However, there is a source for the entire section - reference 20 points to a University of Dayton Web site with this list of special interest houses. In any case, give me a while, and I'll get the article updated again and get rid of the list once and for all. (If you check the history, you'll notice the list was quite a bit more ... erm ... informal than it is now, so this shortened version was the compromise from last year.) Newsboy85 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is him, he's being smart enough to stay away from long talk-page posts. What do you think? Kww (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• You may be right (who am I kidding, of course it's SocMe). Let's see what checkuser has to say. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirmed —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

may i add new joints and new entries category i had it before since August 07. But this guy keeps deleting it. ---Piazzajordan2 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• That content does not belong on Wikipedia. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could I make an article for it with sources? ---Piazzajordan2 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No. This was already clearly addressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Joints & New Entries from 106 & Park. Whether or not you can find a reliable source, the information does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Think it's Soccermeko again? Only two edits, so I didn't jump to judgement, but your edit summary sounds like you have a strong opinion on the topic.
Kww (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Who else cares about Nicole and her unreleased albums? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there have been two or three other edits in the last three years ... her fans do seem pretty scarce on the ground.
Kww (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on this conversation is welcome. I'm in AGF mode, myself.
Kww (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beginning to sound more and more familiar.
Kww (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as yet another Soccermeko sock. It may well be that his is her only fan.
Kww (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of articles in this series going through the deletion process, so please do not go to the AfDs and !vote, I do not intend to canvass. However, I was wondering if you might take a look at a few of the articles and editors to provide a second opinion on this. We have several editors/IPs (mostly SPAs) creating detailed articles for the series with track lists, release dates, etc. with no sources whatsoever. They ignore requests for sources, say little or nothing in AfDs and remove AfD templates without comment (prods as well). When other editors search for info, they find nothing at all or a single line on Amazon. While I've seen numerous passionate fans of various artists and genres (Soccermeko, metal fans, etc.), this seems categorically different. Any thoughts? A few to look at: Princess DisneyMania, DisneyMania 7, Special:Contributions/Di_Ramos, Special:Contributions/Garycwright, Special:Contributions/200.251.232.200. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I barely check in on Wikipedia any more, and it looks like I'm a little too late to weigh in on this. Hope it turned out satisfactorily. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject Discographies, I thought you might be interested to participate in the collaboration. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks interesting. Thanks for the heads up. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In this AfD, you overlooked the 2nd article that was attached. (The link box on the side makes it sort of blend in.) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. In future, those can be deleted by tagging them as {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't want to presume that you had decided both articles should be deleted. Thanks. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I'll hang back a bit and see if someone else leaps into the fray. I've really got my hands full trying to keep the mouseketeers in line. Never thought I would see the day when a Vanessa Hudgens article hit the top of my edit count, and I grow more and more convinced that I'm lucky to have never heard her sing.Kww (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's amazing how one can get sucked into editing articles that one has little or no interest in. I had to cut waaay back on my WP time because it was getting out of hand. Keep up the good work! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If these do get deleted, can you please make sure that the album covers get deleted too? I just hate to see images get orphaned. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I do usually keep an eye on those. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I only added back the deletion template to The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) and nothing else. CRocka05 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I see what I did, I hit undo on the person who deleted the deletion template, and it also undid what you had deleted already. CRocka05 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you undid the edit below the one you meant to. It could happen to anyone. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for your comments at the YahZarah AfD. Cheers! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Nice job digging up the facts. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pat myself on the back, and I didn't call you any names - you're imagining things. Given that the subject of the article Wordsworth (rapper) has released several albums, the articles for which link to several reviews, is/was a member of notable rap groups, and that sources were readily found, I feel my edit summary was accurate and and assumed as much good faith as is reasonable. Inappropriate speedy/prod tagging damages this encyclopedia. Your pointer to WP:DICK is far closer to a personal attack than anything I did, and is, frankly, offensive. Maybe you should have a word with yourself, and concentrate on making positive contributions to this project.--Michig (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced that he's notable but your improvements are enough for me to not bother listing it at AFD. His "notable" rap group is only borderline notable because it has two notable members (one of which is Wordsworth himself). Your edit summary was more dickish than necessary (that is to say, it shouldn't have been dickish at all) and if I hurt your feelings pointing that out, I'm sorry. You go your way and I'll go mine. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're doing yourself no favours calling me a dick again. Maybe you should have a read of WP:DICK yourself, and stop being so childish.--Michig (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I was commenting on your edit summary, which was dickish. You, personally, are an upstanding member of society and kind to small animals and senior citizens, I'm sure. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuss me, I am new to this but I know that the page needs time to progress. It has only been up two days, there for I have taken down the deletion banner. I am still trying to gather sources for the page. Please edit the page if you know more information, but you need to hang on before considering it's deletion. 70.208.14.31 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the article had plenty of time before it was deleted by consensus. There was considerable discussion in its AFD. Unless there is some new reason why she now meets Wikipedia's notability standards, there is no need to hang on. Additionally, removing the deletion tag is considered vandalism and could result in your being blocked. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that removing the tag was considered vandalism. Also, if you see something wrong, you need to help fix it. Wanting an article's deletion without making necessary edits is considered bad faith 'I believe'. Readyseason (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are mistaken—removing a CSD tag from an article you created is considered disruptive, which is pretty much equivalent to vandalism. Also, I do fix wrong things I see. In this case, however, the article cannot be "fixed" because it does not belong here. There are no "necessary edits" that would save it so there is no bad faith on my part. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, please delete if it's for the best. Readyseason (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• That is up to an admin to decide. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The confirmed tracks are real songs. Meta Music had it on there site before they took it down for repair and updates. Also if your looking to remove unsourced fake songs, try Beyonce's forthcoming album page. Because I used that page as an example of how to create "Breathing". Readyseason (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If the information is not verifiable, then it can't be included in the article. If the record label replaced the info on their website, then it can be replaced in the article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But there are other sites that interview Yolanda, and they confirmed that the album is coming in October 2008. Readyseason (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• We're talking about the song titles here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Readyseason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kiki Shearer? Yolanda Johnson? Smells like Soccermeko to me, but we've got his IPs blocked up pretty tightly. Opinion?—Kww(talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have far more experience with him than I do. I'd bet that if we keep a close eye—if it is Soccermeko—his foot will slip sooner rather than later. I don't have time tonight but I'll do some digging tomorrow. And best of luck with, well, anything you might could use a little extra luck with. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the name is Kierra Kiki Sheard. I have edited her article but it required some updating. Also, I am trying to be more helpful in creating more pages. (Here are the list of upcoming pages "Lina (singer)", "Yolanda Johnson", "Breathing", and more). Now you are welcome to help because I would like anyone who knows the rules to help. Readyseason (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You got busier faster than I thought. Can any of your browsers penetrate www.yolandadiary.com, which these articles use as a source? Mine just tell me my browser's older than IE5: it's Firefox 3 and IE6 (in a pinch), so I know that isn't true.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was going to bed but couldn't resist a peek and then things sorta snowballed. Safari doesn't work (same error as you), but with Firefox and the NoScript extension, I can get in if I only selectively allow scripts. I hope she didn't pay much for that basically inaccessible website. All I can find are three video clips (haven't watched 'em). Also discovered that her label's website URL expired about a week ago. I'm going to bed; wonder what develops overnight. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Spellcast decided, and issued an indef block.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Makes sense. What about the IP (70.208.14.31) that Readyseason was editing from? Only a couple of edits so I guess we'll just have to watch it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked that last night: it's a Verizon Wireless account, so he's going to be hell to track on an IP basis now.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that a collaboration with Pharrell, Trey Songz, and Junior Reid makes this album notable. Therefore, I do not think that it should be deleted.--Signshare (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly once the album is released, or gets substantial coverage in the real media, it will be notable. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Other discographies are worse than that one, so you need to do something that only criticize mine, go check out Lloyd Banks' Fabolous' and many many more.--Signshare (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add to the discussion about the American Idol performance chart on Nikki McKibbin's article that I started at Talk:Nikki McKibbin#American Idol performance chart. Aspects (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Commented. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your RFA did not pass but outlook is good for your chances of passing next time. I would go off on a rant about axe-grinders and the pettiness of those who focused on one questionable comment (which I fully agree with) instead of taking the time to check out the entirety of your oeuvre and modus operandi, but that wouldn't serve "the greater good". Whatevs; you know you deserve it and you will get the tools next year. Chin up and all that sorta stuff. All the best. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Hello Control ... I'd like a 2nd opinion on this article:

• Chaundon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The PROD-2 was contested ... do you think it's worth the hassle of an AfD?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) _{20:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)}

• I had tagged the article with {{notability}} before someone else prodded it, so I'll give it another couple of weeks before acting. I don't expect to see it improved to meet WP:MUSIC, but I'd be happy if it were. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done … article has been rescued by Some Other Editors. :-) — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit placed your AfD on the list, but also removed mine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gosh, that's incredibly bizarre; I don't know how it happened. Sorry about that. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to the notability notice on my article for D.O.E.. I am confused about the need for notability. This is a legitimate artist signed to a major record label Mosley Music Group who has been featured on the billboard charts. In addition, my sources are all relevant and do not include any MySpace or imeem references. Please advise. Thanks.Bmedick (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The only thing that comes close to meeting WP:MUSIC is that he appeared on someone else's (barely) charting single. Since that does not meet the letter of the law, I tagged it for notability so others could weigh in. Note that being signed to a major label is not enough, the artist must have released two albums on a major (or one of the big indies). The references are fine, that's why I didn't tag it for that. The notability tag is no big deal, just leave it there for a couple of months and if no one else is worried about it, I won't be either. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Thanks! -Bmedick (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Go, ahead, I think that the page should be deleted if its been here since March, and there hasn't been a single released nor a given release date. The article was valid at that time, I think that it should be meged into the Consequence (rapper) page.--Signshare (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i'm correcting the aticle, as you don't do this, so shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thobbyas (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• You're not "correcting" it; you're 1) removing a current Articles for deletion tag and 2) adding a copyright violating external link. I notice that you added copyvio YouTube links to a number of articles—all videos uploaded by the same user. I have corrected this by reverting all of your spam. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being bothersome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YesYesY'allBanger (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you have an issue with my valid edits, please discuss it on the talk page of the article in question, rather than simply reverting my edits. I would also direct you to read WP:OWN. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem.YesYesY'allBanger (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, let's talk about this on the talk page.

Just thought you might find this new shortcut useful.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Incredibly useful. I was just trying to remember today which ones were the bad ones. Thanks so much! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, I want to thank you for actually taking the time to look up information on Gabriel Mann instead of just steamrolling through Wikipedia policy, as others did. I checked back on the article today to find that it had been deleted. I was under the impression that votes for deletion would actually be tallied, and if so then the votes were still dead even. Should the article have been deleted, or is this good enough to call vandalism? 129.7.77.42 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) The above was ofcourse, written by me. Voxbaryton (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• AFD is not a vote; it's a discussion with the goal of reaching a consensus. The admin who closed the discussion felt that there were not enough compelling arguments to keep the article and I would have to agree. With the addition of more media coverage, I think the article could have been saved (it still needed a major rewrite, however). An article or profile in an LA newspaper or music mag would have been a good start but there was nothing even close. If you feel like making the effort of tracking down better coverage and fixing the article, you can always ask the closing admin to recreate the article in your userspace (User:Voxbaryton/Gabriel Mann (musician), for example) where you can work to improve it. When you think it's ready to be moved back into articlespace, consult with others—the closing admin, for starters—and see if they think the article would pass notability standards. Let me know if you need any help. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting, I didn't know that you could create articles in "userspace" as it were. I may do this! Thank you for the direction. Voxbaryton (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything about AD, is just a link to the video, OKAY? As the same in the floor of the page, there is a ad link, not on my link. Idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thobbyas (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nice manners. You will be sorry, perhaps, to learn that it is you who are the idiot. You are adding external links to multiple articles, links that are all videos uploaded by the same YouTube user. That is spam, whether or not you are that user and whether or not you make money from the links. There is a bigger issue, however. The videos you are linking to are copyright violations. So I guess I owe you an apology—I should have left a {{uw-copyright-link}} notice on your talk page along with {{uw-spam}}. But since you left me a nasty note, I am withholding my apology—so eat it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Those links are on the World Premiere channel @YouTube, so, if you see the clause who is located at the main page of the channel, see that is the Official Channel brought by UMG, Music World & SME to LA & Europe Countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thobbyas (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "if you see the clause who is located at the main page" — I don't even know what this means; can you say it in English, please? I'm sorry but I'm not multilingual. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Hello Control, if editors attack you in the future, be sure to report them promptly to WP:AIV, before their behaviour escalates into harassment --Flewis^(talk) 08:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have verified the title of the album and that it will be released. Schuym1 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my response at the AfD. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you continue to remove Cpl Angelo Vaccaro from the noticeable recipients on the Silver Star page. He is the first, and only so far, soldier to receive two Silver Stars in the Global War on Terror. This is definitely an achievement worthy of being listed in a wikipedia article. Beyond that, he was a great friend a great Man. If you do not like the format in which it was entered, edit it, but DO NOT delete Him from the page again. Xaulzan (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's not me who is disrespecting your friend, it is you who is disrespecting Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to add him to the Silver Star article, first write an article about him that passes the rules for notability. If that article stays, then he should absolutely be included in Silver Star. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact is Im not disrespecting any guidelines, If being the only person to receive two silver stars in the war that we are CURRENTLY fighting is not notable than no one else is worthy of being on the page either. So who are you to decide? Following the rules of wikipedia we should have others decide wether or not he stays and it should be decided in the talk page of the article. Not up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaulzan (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that you do not and cannot understand how Wikipedia works. I have neither the time nor the inclination to help you out. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you for pointing it out. But I did not see that as a policy mentioned anywhere on WP:ALBUMS. I was also going by, as I said in my edit summary, what we've always done regarding "Aftermath"/"G-Unit"/"Interscope"/"Shady". As I said, this is just me, going by other editors. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's in WP:ALBUMS, though it probably should be. That part of my edit summary was in reference to bolding the album title in the chronology part of the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologizes then. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • No sweat—just trying to spread the knowledge. Peace! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and added the source for the image, dip slice.LoveLaced (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Dip slice"? I don't even know what the hell that means. But thanks for taking care of business. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it's funny that you criticize others for not looking up sources, yet your first instinct is just "DELETE EVERYTHING!!" instead of looking for one to add to complete to article.LoveLaced (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I marked it as missing a source and notified the uploader (in this instance, you). How do I know where the uploader got it from? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Would it kill you to look it up and complete the page instead of having everything deleted? That would seem to be the more appropriate thing. And it wouldn't come across as spiteful. I see now that you're going through my editing history, looking for more incorrect things to have deleted. Can't let go of the fact that you couldn't get Sunday Love deleted or what? -LoveLaced (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, I ask you—exactly how am I supposed to know where you got the image from? If I was trying to be spiteful, I wouldn't have bothered to notify you on your talk page that the image had been tagged, nor tagged the caption in the article. Please try to assume good faith. I have most assuredly not looked through your editing history—I have far better things to do. If you check my edit history, you'll find that edits even remotely connected to you are a tiny percentage of my edits. So you see, this persecution complex of yours is quite unfounded. Do you think that every time someone takes issue with your image tagging that they have some ulterior motive? If so, judging by comments left on your talk page, there are quite a few people who have axes to grind with you. Also, as I've stated before—yes, I nominated Sunday Love for deletion but the sources found by other editors (that you couldn't be bothered to find) clearly show the album meets notability for albums. Remember that not everyone takes things as personally as you do. Also, you might want to brush up on WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it" and "If you do not want your ideas... challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them." —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Nice. Real nice. "how am I supposed to know where you got the image from?" Are you implying that it's too much trouble to google the image, or even go to amazon.com where it would faster, replace the image and put down the source? You would rather have it deleted than try to contribute to completing the information and make Wikipedia better, not less informative. How can I assume "good faith" when you do that and then go through all of my edits and have all the ones deleted that lack a source? And I have no bones to pick with anyone else because they aren't delete happy. I made mistakes when I first joined the site and that's my fault for not reading all of the regulations regarding non-free content and sourcing, which were corrected for the most part. But it was not by the same person going through everything I've done. If I went through all of the articles for deletion you've been a part of and voted to keep them, that would seem personal, wouldn't it? I also love how you keep stating I couldn't bother to find notable sources for the Sunday Love page when except for a couple of sources that were added citing people that worked on production, I found and put every other source on that page. However, I can see by the comments on your page, a lot of people have problems with your edits/deletions, much more than me alone. -LoveLaced (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Let me get this straight—you're mad because I didn't do the work that you should have done, right? Also, as I said before, I have not gone through your edits to find images you uploaded. The Eve's Plum one I came upon after clicking though from somewhere else into their article. I had no idea you had uploaded it until I went to leave the uploader notice. If anything, YOU should be going through your own edits and fixing any images that need it. But I guess you just expect other people to do that for you. Don't worry too much about any negative comments that have been left here—there's always at least one unhappy editor when something gets deleted. I don't think anyone else has ever felt persecuted by me, though, so I guess that makes you special. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, and several other music-related AfD's, prods, etc., I feel I should point out two sections from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD:

1. Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
2. When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.

In the case of Red Cafe, the artist has a substantial biography at Allmusic, as well as a discography listing 2 albums, with a lot of hits from both Google and Google news searches. Please ensure that your "good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist" includes searching Allmusic and Google in the future, so that articles that can be improved to demonstrate notability are not unnecessarily subject to deletion discussions. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Inclusion at Allmusic does not impart notability. None of his actual albums have been released (I tried like the dickens but can find nothing to indicate that Toshiba actually released I Got a Story to Tell). I'm sorry if it bothers you that your interpretation of the guidelines, etc. differs from mine but that is the nature of WIkipedia. I guess you haven't noticed the articles that I've added references to, showing notability. That's OK. But please don't mischaracterize my nomination—I said nothing about sourcing concerns. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion at Allmusic alone would not impart notability, but a substantial biography at Allmusic plus any other significant coverage in a reliable source would constitute notability, which is why I would recommend checking allmusic when there is a concern over notability, since the primary consideration for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. I saw the Toshiba album for sale in an online shop (although I can't find it now), and the Co-op album has certainly been released and reviewed (almost all of the tracks are by DJ Envy and Red Cafe, one of which was issued as a single, so I think this qualifies as an album rather than the usual (various artists with a bit of rapping over the top) mixtapes). Irrespective of album releases, he clearly passes WP:MUSIC on coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Toshiba album is listed on Amazon.co.jp but with only minimal information, which usually indicates the album was solicited by the label but not released (for an example, see One Chance's album Private on Amazon.com). I couldn't find it listed anywhere that was actually selling it. Co-op was called a mixtape at most of the places I looked at, including the Allmusic review. I hadn't questioned whether that album had been released—it obviously has. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't had much time today but I've had a quick look at the Concept album and I agree it's a mess of WP:OR at the moment. I'm guessing that most of the refs are just articles about particular albums where they are described as 'concept albums', although I haven't had time to check them out. I'll take a closer look over the next couple of days.--Michig (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's cool—no rush. That was my appraisal of the refs as well. I hate to think it needs an almost total rewrite; just gathering good sources will be daunting. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a scrap job to me, too. A ton of OR tied together by reviews that called individual works "concept albums". I'll keep this one in my. If you look at my contribs over the last few days, you'll be able to figure out my recent task: 170 references to the UWC website down, another 340 to go. Then I'll be able to get started on the ones without references.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ick. I've recently been deleting UWC and BULs that I've come across in my travels but not hunting them down; bless you. I haven't been watching to see if they're being re-added though—gotta cut back on my Wiki-overtime. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you back up the claim it's a gossip blog reprinting a press release? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Responded at the AfD. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Had to brag a bit somewhere. It will take a few days for the servers' search indices to catch up, but, for at least for a few minutes, the entire article space is free of the strings "United World Chart", and no article contains "UWC" and "chart". Don't think it will last for long.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody buy that man a drink! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

well, I just don't feel completely comfortable deleting stuff like that. But I will do it because you are most likely right. Sorry for the trouble. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, that's cool. If you do it, that's great; if not, that's fine, too. You're the one with tools, after all. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are reverting valid and sourced information. Stop doing that! You are vadalizing the page- go read the link for yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.30.239 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting edits by a block-evader is not vandalism. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding this profile agreed certain things should be cited i have done so to a few I'll try and do more when I have more time---Not sure why you say imdb is not reputable there are hundreds of wiki pages that use imdb as a reference. I removed the notability guidelines as there have been over 20 people that have placed information on this bio and the person that initailly added it has numerous contributions and a stellar reputation with wiki. My focus is also on american TV hosts as you can see that what I spend most of my time on here at wiki and this bio would fall under that. Dont really see it as a news release but if you feel it is why don't you just make edits to make it more suitable? Movieman2008 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Movieman2008

• IMDb can be edited by anyone, therefore it is not a reliable source. Additionally, the number of edits to a page have no relevance to the notability of the subject. As for your "focus", it seems to be primarily on R.J. Williams. I suggest that you are either Williams himself or have a connection to him or his company. Please read WP:COI for Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd you say my focus is primarily R.J. Williams when until you went in and starting drastically altering the page I had only made 1 edit and it was essentially just re-wording what was already inputted by several other people. Very confused as to why you would start mentioning a conflict of interest with his company when prior to your edits I have never posted anything about his company. As for my imdb question it was very valid since multiple profiles on wiki use it as a reference. (03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieman2008 (talk • contribs)

• I didn't say your IMDb question was invalid—you asked why it was unreliable, and I told you. That it has incorrectly been used as a source in other articles does not change the fact that it is unreliable. And you're right, you had only edited the article once before me (and added a link to his website in another article). I was confusing you with all the other single-purpose accounts promoting Williams and his website (like Rjw2007 (talk · contribs)—musta been the similarity in names). And your mischaracterization of my edits as "drastically altering" the page is weird, too. I fixed a number of formatting issues (see WP:MOS for Wikipedia format), added some cite requests, removed excessive external links per WP:EL, and added some template messages regarding the subject's questionable notability, and the article's style and lack of references. In fact, the external links were the only content removed from the article, not very drastic, if you ask me. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I will admit I am relatively new to wiki and am still trying to learn how things work here. I have alot of knowledge about the reality hosting world and feel i can make valid contributions. Its just frustrating that i take the time to make them and someone suddenly removes them. And then very frustrating when you mentioned conflict of interest, but if you confused my name with someone else then i can see where you were coming from. As for drastically altering i am questioning the "questionable notabilty" tag you added. He happens to be quite well known and I've seen him featured on television quite frequently---so dont understand how notabilty could be in question. Several people have taken alot of time to build the page over some time so doesnt make sense how now the notability can be in question. If thats how it works here on wiki then i dont want to be apart of it--doesn't make sense i spend hours trying to help the community and then suddenly someone can decide to delete a profile. I'm going through this on another profile one for "Sal Masekela"--his has been there for a long time I took the time to contribute and now some person with only a few contributions to his name is questioning his notability and tagged his proifle. The guy is the star of the highest rated show on one of the most popular channels in America. Hopefully you hear where I'm coming from--citations and all that stuff i get but to suddenly nominate profiles be deleted that really shouldnt be just doesn't seem fair. As for imdb so i should go through articles and remove it from references anytime someone posts it? Where can i go to learn what is a suitable reference? i can make alot of profiles better but i dont want to waste time if im doing so with non suitable references. Movieman2008 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The way the notability tag works is that you add more information that shows the subjects notability, then the tag is removed. For a media personality like Williams, that would be most easily achieved by adding references from non-trivial media coverage (from established media, like newspapers, magazines, national TV shows, etc.) Please visit the talk page of the article in question for more discussion of the contents of that article. For sourcing information, I suggest you visit WP:RS and do some reading. IMDb is generally considered to be reliable in terms of movie credits for released films but since the content on IMDb is user-submitted, most anything else should be cited from another source, including biographical information. If the subject is notable enough, it shouldn't be too hard to find an alternate source. I would agree that Sal Masekela is likely to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, the article—in its current state—needs a lot of work. I can see how someone unfamiliar with him could come across that article and doubt his notability. If the Daily 10 really is the highest rated show on E!, then the article should reflect that (with a verifiable reference from a reliable source). It should also be in the introductory paragraph rather tagged on the end like an afterthought. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is really not cool--I have now spent several hours adding references to the bio-- I literally posted it up 5 minutes ago and was in the process of writing you asking you to please discuss on talk board before you take down my work and now its already taken down---How is it you erased my comments after only 5 minutes of being posted? You mention a clip was down i guess there was a typo in the url it would have been simple for you to notify me on talk to doublecheck the clip instead of immediately removing it its very valid-here it is to see for your self--- http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=5224972&version=1&locale=EN-US I'm starting to think you have a personal thing issue with this guy--if thats the case you should have just told me at the beginning so i didnt waste any time on it. I could have put these hours to use on another profile instead of one you are monitoring 24/7 because u want it removed so bad. (Movieman2008 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)).

• I didn't touch the malformed link you added. I do realize I tagged it as unreliable when I meant to tag it as failing verification (as I mentioned in the edit summary, appearing in one clip does not support claims of "several shows"); the tag has been changed. I did my edits separately so you could easily see in the edit summaries why I did what I did. Any questions about that can be brought up on the article's talk page. I don't have a personal issue with this guy; I never even heard of him until I saw someone spamming his website across different articles. Undoing those edits lead me to his article, and what I saw didn't convince me of his notability. That's all. As for wanting it removed "so bad", if that were the case, I wouldn't bother tagging and fixing format, I would have put it up for deletion right away. Instead, I am giving other editors the chance to improve it and show notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I see you went and deleted the credits reference i added --this was a direct quote form you above "IMDb is generally considered to be reliable in terms of movie credits for released films" I used it in the terms of a released film ---A user cant go and manipulate what Showtime Networks lists as a film THEY distributed---if you click on link there are multiple shows that they distributed that say they are produced by arjay entertainment---you just obviously didnt take the time to look--amazing i can spend an hour to find the info and u can spend 2 minutes to just delete it when i was following a tip that you gave saying only use imdb for credits. I've found clips of 2 of the biggest networks in the world interviewing him Fox and ABC yet you still question his notability---I'm sure there are tons of other instances of major outlets interviewing him but im not going to bother finding them now because you will just delete anyway---- im tried reasoning with you and gone above and beyond trying to do what you've asked and i've got to tell you that you have made the wikipedia experience miserable for me--im taking my time to try and help the community and this is what happens----im not going to waste anymore time arguing and going back and forth with you --you win keep the profile how you want because in all honesty now i could care less. (Movieman2008 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)).

• The main problem with your reference was not that it was IMDb, it's that it said nothing about Williams' company—it was just a list of films that Showtime handled. A list of films is not proof that "This presentation caught the eye of Showtime executives and he then began a relationship that lasted several years and spawned numerous series and specials." —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on dealing with the hoaxer. If you have questions about this ongoing problem, please see User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no Barbaro hoaxer. How can editors adding validly sourced material that can be checked by anyone be hoaxing. That is rediculous. You also can not justly block any user for making valid good faith edits, that is corrupton and abuse of power.4.143.236.17 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you feel compelled to tell me this, 4.143.236.17. I haven't blocked you, and I know nothing about whether or not you're hoaxing. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can help, that's why, I don't appreciate being blocked unjustly- and there is major confusion gong on.63.26.42.156 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do for you. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you can do- is stop calling hoaxes by a living person's proper name- a person who is innocent. this talk goes all over the internet. the person's first initial is just fine. You don't half to be cruel to an innocent person.Upjoy (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Checkuser info. Good to see the latest crop of Barbaro hoaxer socks blocked and the temporary block of the IPs. I'm curious how some of the sock with no edits were detected. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The person doing the checkuser can see what accounts were created and when by a particular IP (or likely even an IP range). That's why I asked for a check for sleeper accounts. Sometimes it doesn't pay off, but sometimes—especially with a long-time block evader like this—it does. Keep fighting the good fight —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• The hoaxer is back. They recently added Vitus Barbaro to Vision Industries and are making other unsupported edits. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm sorry about that. I forgot to save the page here before I clicked away from it. Basically, I think that your comment that kind of said he was that guy or whatever wasn't very nice. I definitely shouldn't have written that comment (I'm removing it right after this), but I was thinking of a similar situation that I was in (on the opposite side) when I was a newbie user and another editor really helped me. I think you could have been nicer, but you weren't really that bad looking at it again. My sincere apologies for writing that as it was totally wrong on my part. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's OK, no harm done. I really just wanted to know if I was doing anything wrong. I did try to be non-accusatory about the COI suspicions I have but I wanted to be up-front about it at the same time. Williams' website has been spammed onto Wikipedia by a number of SPAs so I was a bit on guard about it and promotional-type content in his article. Thanks for getting back to me. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I am back from vacation and have responded to the note at my talk page about you. Since it's about you, I thought to give you a heads up. Do please feel free to weigh in, especially if I have misinterpreted your actions in any way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. You pretty much nailed it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the things you mentioned on the usertalk page for RJ Williams was in order to show notability you need to show things such as proof of awards. I went ahead and added that a few days ago as well as a reference which you left in tact. So will you be ok if I remove the notability tag from the page? As for the advertising and citations tags you added I plan to leave those intact and let other users in the community try and find additional information and make those corrections. Apologize for erasing those in the beginning i wasn't aware the protocal but now moonriddengirl has explained its best to discuss before undoing something that was added. (Movieman2008 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

It does not seem like the Youth in Film Awards are particularly notable. If that is the only award you can find, I would have to disagree with removing the notability tag. When I get a chance, I'll take a look at the changes to the page. In the future, rather than posting here, you can discuss any changes or proposed changes on the article's talk page, I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find User:Kww/goodcharts a useful reference. I'm interested in getting feedback before I start trying to make it a component of WP:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I monitor Wikipedia talk:Record charts, and checked out your chart—looks mighty comprehensive to me. Could be a bit complex for many users but I don't see that as avoidable. As long as the key is kept simple ("OK to use", "not OK to use and should be removed", and "not OK to use but need not be removed"), arguments should be kept to a minimum. You do good work. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth watching. Insufficient evidence right now.—Kww(talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Wray Discussion appears to have tapered off a tad. One post this year, and even our old friend appears to have given up hope.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure when that long-awaited album comes out (any day now) things will pick back up. A smash hit is just around the corner! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Well, the idea was to free up the main article to deal with it as a concept; who uses the term, what does it mean, etc. I'm fine with moving the COG cult article to another page. "Cult" was short, to-the-point (given their cultish practices), and corresponding with the "widely referred to as a cult" concept stated in the lede. But that said, Children of God (movement) works fine too. Sorry about not dealing with the redirects - I'll take a look. Regards, -Stevertigo 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have a specific disambiguation to suggest. Another solution would have been to leave the group at the root (since that seems to be by far the best-known use of the term) with a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. Thanks for checking out the old links (hopefully sooner rather than later). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer). Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a new editor [3] adding the same info to articles that the last crop of Barbaro hoaxer socks did. [4] Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Whitley Neill Gin, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitley Neill Gin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ghetto (rapper). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghetto (rapper). Please be sure 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 bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)