The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Spebi. No further edits should be made to this page.
We'll put it in once we can dig up some more stuff from that Rosie Beaton interview, I'm reluctant to have one-liners in the article. I'll implement the refs in now. Spebi03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard anything about that yet actually, I'll see what I can find later. What do you think of the image under Philanthropy? I don't know why I chose it, it just appealed to me out of the other hundred or so of Jeanie's photos from the concert :) Spebi04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin?
Hey man, have you ever considered becoming an admin? You've got a nice healthy edit count spread across the namespaces, and the work you've done on Powderfinger and other articles is impressive. I'd be happy to nominate you if you like. Let me know, okay? GlassCobra08:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to be around later, so thought I'd offer my support early. :) Remind me to call back past your RfA if it moves faster than I do ok. -- Longhair\talk05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, sorry, I won't. I've been busy with other projects recently, haven't been able to help out at all, actually :( Spebi08:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme11:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tick the raw signature box, and replace the text in the signature box with the following code: [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]]. The software will only trigger the talk link if you just enter Acalamari with raw signature not ticked. Spebi23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hadn't noticed we were using American standardising with the dates, but we should be using Australian, since the text style used should match the source of the subject matter (i.e. they're an Australian band, so the date formatting should be in the format used bu Australians, so day then month). This may take a while to amend all to be this way so we should probably ask Alex to run giggabot to format all of them to the standard Aussie format. --lincalinca05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it by hand, if you like :) Plus, as far as I know, it's only Dream Days that needs date formatting... wait a moment, do you mean American style is November 17, 2007, and Australian style is 1 November2007? My personal views on this one is Month Date, Year, but there is no guideline or a MOS page forbidding either, all they ask for is that the date formatting is consistent throughout the article. Hmmm... Spebi05:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is the dte should be in the format used based on the locality of the article, and the standard australian format is DD MM CCYY, so we should employ that there. --lincalinca05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that if a topic is related to Australia, then the article should use Australian English – but it doesn't have to. The Manual of Style says it doesn't really matter which style is used (but it's preferable that in this example, Australian english is used). WP:MOSDATE#Dates says nothing about Month Date, Year, vs. DD MM CCYY, however, I think that we should stick with Month Date, Year, simply because a lot of the Powderfinger articles are already formatted with this, and the only article I know otherwise is Dream Days and Nobody Sees. Spebi05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't really see the point of changing all the dates on all the articles to satisfy some sort of criteria that doesn't exist. All the Manual of Style says is that whatever format we use, it must be used throughout the whole article. Nothing about same format throughout all articles in a topic, nothing about format based on locality (that was for dialects of English). Plus, this probably belongs on the project talk page or on Talk:Powderfinger, so some other members can have a say. Spebi19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
speedy criteria
If you want to become an admin, read WP:CSD, where you will find that fictional characters can not be speedied as non notable, only real people. there's a reason for this, which is that ,many articles on real people are easy to judge unequivocally as non-notable, but fictional ones are easy to misjudge if only two people look at it. DGG (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking straight this morning. I have read WP:CSD many times, I probably just skipped over that part. I'll be more careful next time :| Spebi21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although that part is a defining element in A7, I probably should have paid more attention to it, and for that matter, all parts of CSD, regardless of how minor they are. Spebi21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren(talk)23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Powderfinger
Sorry Spebi, I've more or less left Wikipedia at this time. After the OHM FAC I'm pretty much done. Maybe I'll return in the future. Regards, NSR77TC05:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm :( Good luck with whatever you decide to do, and good luck with OHM :) Your work on Red Hot Chili Peppers articles and pretty much everything and anything alternative-related, really is appreciated. Spebi06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I finished reporting that one to AIV and back to his talk page when I see the [block] button :) I was like "eeek!" ;) Spebi09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dang! How did I miss another important RfA I would have gladly given a nice rambling support opinion on? Ahhh, well, you did not need it, and instead, I shall just say congratulations! May your mop water always be clean! ~*Grin*~ Ariel♥Gold09:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming a new admin! To learn a little about how to work your new tools, check out the New admin school. If you like, you can use the userbox {{User:EVula/Userboxes/admin since|year=2007|month=11|day=20}} on your user page to display how long you have been an admin. Best! -- Jreferee t/c01:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOTD experiment
Now that my project is fully up and running, I though you might want to consider the four main benefits of my method over the one that you seem to be supporting:
There is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Unfortunately, Riana will soon archive her talk page, so you might want to update that link when she does. We don't want anyone not to find that link now, do we? ;) I'll update it here too. · AndonicOTalk21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do realise that the username blatantly attacks Chris G (talk·contribs), however, AIV isn't UAA. He has been blocked, but I just felt that it really wasn't necessary to report; 2 edits to Canberra, an article unrelated to Chris G, to me just don't "indicate a vandalism-only account". Spebi08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, next time i will just take the long, bureaucratic route then, either by reverting four vandalisms, or by waiting till he is blocked due to a personal attack/user name violation. This time i just cut an edge since i was certain that it was a vandal only account (Cant blame me for expecting that based upon his actions/username). But if you ask me, taking this long route is just a long way to the same result. --Excirial (Talk,Contribs)08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you do anything, I'm just sayign that at the time when I removed your request, I felt that 2 edits didn't indicate a vandalism-only account – obviously, I was wrong. I wasn't suggesting that next time you wait for things to happen. I'm sorry for bringing this all on you. Spebi08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all. Generally taken offensive user names create a high risk level for vandalism (EG: Bad faith against a username). Personally i believe that a bad faith username counts as a vandalism on it own, which leaves space for two additional vandalisms. When that threshold is reached, i simply report them. (Note: ONLY when its clear vandalism such as blanking, adding clear proficiency lines, or intentionally adding wrong information.) It might be a little fast, but after reporting 500 or so vandals, it kind of became clear that this is for the best in 99% of the cases (It saves myself and my fellow vandalism partols some work) :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs)08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I doubt any bad faith vandal would create an account attacking a particular user and then use it for making constructive contributions, but then again, it might occur. Spebi08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be able to help you a bit more if you provide the YouTube video in question, or perhaps the article which you hope to cite the video in. It is possible to cite a television episode without having to link to a YouTube video, I have done this before, and it is possible to cite books without providing a link to a copy of the book online. So, I think that the answer to your question is yes, it might be considered acceptable to use that interview on YouTube as a reference, but in terms of "reliable sources", it may be better to find a transcript of that interview, or just cite the interview episode directly using {{cite video}}. Spebi20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot was down when I did what I did. Also since the bot does not archive any of the requests [1] (i.e. removing oldest ones only), I was doing exactly the same. --202.40.139.171 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Subject obviously not notable, Engbrendan was using the article as an advertisement.
Hello spebi I hope I am in the wright place in terms of contacting you,as I am in quite a rush.Just wondering If there is any chance that you could return my Airy fairy gang page that you have just deleted. The band I will admit is relatively unknown, but they do have a large support.This Wikipedia page would be a major incentive for getting the band off the ground,as you must understand how important the internet is for bands like this.
If you can reconsider youre deletion,the band and myself would be greatfull
Hi Spebi. I noticed that you removed the speedy tag from the above article. Given that it is complete bollocks, is there any reason why there needs to be a wait required under the PROD method to delete this article? I feel it is a nonsense article that should be deleted on sight and not kept for a second longer than needed. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been deleted and redirected to Streets ice cream now... sorry, I just removed the tag thinking that having both of them there wasn't a good idea. I thought that someone had prodded the article and forgot to take away the speedy tag, and so I did that, but obviously that wasn't the case :) Sorry about the confusion. Spebi21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the very prompt response. Actually, I could have been bold and redirected it myself if I had been thinking. I left the PROD tag on in case the speedy was declined by an administrator as asserting notability, which I have seen with even worse articles than that! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
request to undo page deleting
hey there. i'm fairly new to editing wikipedia, therefore i'd like to ask you to undelete the page i am currently working on. the page is containing information about hungarian hardcore metal band bridge to solace, who are one of the most actively touring (over 200 shows in nearly 20 countries around europe) and recording artists in hungary. as i mentioned, i may be new to wikipedia and was willing to try out how to get my article in shape, sorry about that. thanks a lot, Zjakab (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. And congrats on your recently successful RfA as well. All the best, ~Eliz81(C)02:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comex
It read like an advertisement to me. Therefore I proposed a speedy in good faith. Doesn't need the comment left in edit summary, am referring to afd. Regards. Hammer1980·talk01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86.135.249.89
Not to go against your will but the user I reported 86.135.249.89 commented on my talk page as can be see(here) after I had logged off which means an act of vandalism was committed but was not detected until later and if I am right that still counts as vandalism even if it was later. If you read the edit it states "We the none Nazi's" and not only that the user seems to be under the impression that we are a socialist website "As Wikipedia was set up as the "Socialist International's" mouthpiece; then, either you allow point of view, or you are simply; "The Nazi Party"; hiding behined, "The Socialist International"." To my knowledge we are neither a democracy or any other form of government as they go against WP:NPOV...I really hope I got that one right...anyways. If I sound rude at all during this I am sorry my intention is to understand your stance on this and see why a block was not given. 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you made this report to WP:AIV at 02:39 (UTC) today. In your report, you stated that the IP address in question had vandalised your talk page (diff, at 23:26 yesterday) after a final warning. The final warning was given on his talk page at 22:46 (UTC) yesterday. If my version of events is correct, the order of what happened was attack → warning → AIV report, and so I removed the report from the noticeboard, knowing that a block should not be instated. If the IP address was to make another attack on anyone else, then for sure, it would be blocked. Spebi03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The attack of the other user was this afternoon, the attack on page took place "19:26, November 24" and I reverted it at "22:37, November 24, 2007" that was to my talk page Rgoodermote03:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the IP's contributions, the only edits he made were on November 24 (UTC), but you decide to report on November 25 a few hours after the attacks on yours and Nburden's talk pages. This is obviously a conflict between time zones here, so I am willing to block the IP address should he persist in making attacks on any user at any time again. Spebi03:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you block this user? He has made two edits; one is apparently a good faith edit, and the other could have been a mistake. In addition, he recieved only two warnings. I(talk)04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was in the process of declining the report, but he was already blocked. Also, apparently both warnings were for the same offense. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that appeared to me as a block I shouldn't have done... I've unblocked now. I haven't been making good choices in my blocks, lately, I think I'm going to stay away from AIV for a bit now... Spebi04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you are referring to Jump City, correct? I deleted the article under speedy deletion criterion G4, which allows any page that has been recreated after it was speedily deleted, or deleted by deletion debate. In the case of this article, it was originally deleted per an AfD debate, and then deleted 3 more times under CSD G4, and I just happened to delete the article a fourth time, and the title has now been protected for recreation. Spebi20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking this IP. He/she was posting some gibberish on dozens of articles. Of course, popups let me revert as quick as they could paste, but still - a merry chase. Thanks again! ZZClaims~ Evidence05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. I think the AIV desk was empty for a while, lol. Thanks for nabbing that, Spebi! That was a copy/paste from Unencyclopedia, he was pasting, btw :) Ariel♥Gold05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the images on Commons with a different name aren't linked to an article with the original name. You deleted one 8 minutes before I was able to get the image renamed (infobox issue). Just a heads up. Lara❤Love05:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no reference and citation and no intention of the creator to improve the article in almost a month. After I encountered the creator once, I convince that the article is result of his thought. The editor is very famous for his "certain" sentiment. The grade of importance is very lowest among Korean related articles. I may I tagged the unsuitable tag, but I think it is to be expanded by the creator or to be deleted because there is too many important Korean stub articles here. Or could you give me a hint about where I have to plead for the article to be deleted? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag simply because the article didn't meet the speedy deletion criteria it was originally tagged for. The article wasn't eligible for deletion under CSD A1; articles that don't provide context of the subject, or articles that cover what the subject does, but not what the subject is, so I removed the tag. If you still believe the article meets speedy deletion criteria, but not the one it was originally tagged for, review Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and see if it actually does. Otherwise, you could try prodding the article and after 5 days of the deletion being uncontested, it will be deleted. Spebi07:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for handling 71.107.173.86
Thanks a ton on taking care of that dude. I was just doing vandal patrol and seen him blanking templates, so I followed through as per norm. I decided to escalate quickly when the personal attacks started. Sat back and watched you handle that mess as it unfolded. Almost epic but I bet you guys see a lot more of that then I do on just basic vandal patrol. :-) Looks like he might be a sock puppet too. Anyways, thanks a bunch... ZacBowling(user|talk)09:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, no problem :) I guess the type of stuff that you encounter gradually increases to tougher, more nail-biting, policy-violating, ArbCom-involving, offwiki-harrassing sort of stuff. I'll be following up the sockpuppet business in a moment, too. Spebi09:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops. I have you the wrong ip. updated the section title. didn't want you running off and getting the wrong guy. :-) ZacBowling(user|talk)09:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Spebi. Good work with your new tools, and well done in earning them. I have a complaint about the above user, whom you recently blocked for 31 hours, due to vandalism, abusive editing, trolling and generally being a pain in the rear. However, you also, after blocking the user, declined their unblock request (see here, here).
This should generally be left to a third-party, neutral Administrator, even in clear-cut cases like this. It helps uphold the integrity of the appeals process of our blocking system, as I'm sure you'll understand. If you disagree with my complaint, I'd be more than willing to discuss it, but otherwise, cheers for your time and catch you around.
Right, thanks. It didn't seem right to deal with the request myself, but it didn't occur to me that leaving the request to another uninvolved administrator would be the right choice at the time, but it appears that it was. Thanks for the note :) Spebi04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make contact with the main editors or writers of the PSYCHO 1960 film article. The article itself did not seem to provide a way to do this. The article seems to have been drastically reorganizated including deletions of certain items with no explanations provided. One point that was deleted I know myself to have been incorrect, so that is probably why it was removed. However, several other online sources still use the older version of the Wikipedia article, and the same basic incorrect information is quite popular on the Web elsewhere. The real story behind the error is quite interesting in its own right, so I would like to include it in a newer version of the article or perhaps make a separate related article. I have plenty of documentation to back me up. I would like to make contact with these editors to find out the best way to do this and perhaps discover exactly what their expertise on PSYCHO is. If you need more precise information on exactly what I am talking about, please let me know. You have my permission to forward my letter to the appropriate person.
I ignored that rule because we shouldn't be just paying attention to the amount of votes. That particular FLC ran for at least 10 days (11, or 12? hrm...) and so consensus to promote had been achieved. If anyone had any concerns, they had enough time to make them clear, and so I promoted the article. Spebi08:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, until the guidelines for the page are changed, wait for four support votes. I've had lists that had objections raised by an extra set of eyes placed on the page when there were only supports before (lots of experience here no?). If you wish to change this, then go ahead and raise a discussion, but I doubt it will go through unless a "featured list director" in the vein of Raul is placed to avoid arbitrary closes. Regards, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The 4 support rule is only there to make sure a consensus is reached, and because the particular FLC in question (which I'm not even sure what it is) ended over 10 days ago, I'm pretty sure that it was up there long enough for anyone with concerns to voice them. Consensus was achieved, promote. And next time we have a conflict, do you mind coming to me about this issue first, and see what I say about it, rather than reverting everything I've done? It's just the extra trouble that could have been avoided. Spebi08:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raise the issue at WT:FLC before going through with it. I have no problems with the actual process, I'm simply saying don't jump the gun until such a thing is actually implemented. Just wait the extra days. There's no deadline you're missing. And more often than not, the lack of comments is due to a lack of people looking at the nomination rather than anything else. No need to WP:IGNORE in this case. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not rushing anything here. I took a look at the subpage and it clearly stuck out at me as "consensus had been reached". It's a valid opportunity to ignore the so-called "4 supports" rule, and in my opinion I don't really see how waiting the extra day would do much at all. And I doubt that in this case the lack of 4 supports was due to a lack of not being visible for long enough. It was on the page longer than the "10 days" rule says, and I saw that all the concerns raised before it was closed had been addressed. I'm not going to start a discussion on WT:FLC, because I don't want to change the "4 supports" rule. The reason why WP:IAR is in place is to allow rules to be ignored, not to allow rules to be changed so it can only be used in extreme cases. In my opinion, I appropriately applied my judgement in this situation. Spebi08:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second buddy, two reverts doesn't constitute a valid 3RR violation. I'd say you are jumping the gun now. I wasn't intending on reverting you a second time, in fact I think that you should not have reverted in the first place, and rather, discuss to come up with a solution. Spebi08:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to me breaking 3RR first. Anyhow, I reverted initially since you closed the nomination without a summary explaining why you were ignoring the guidelines for a close. Without such a thing, it provides the impression that you're closing it prematurely. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it was a wrong on my part because I didn't provide a summary of why I ignored the 4 support rule? I thought it was quite obvious. Then again, nothing is obvious to those who don't understand that it was obvious. I'm continuing this dispute at WT:FLC. Spebi08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie newspaper
Hi there. Can we have a section on FAs and GAs. We have a bit of momentum on the article writing front and it would be good if we could generate a long term article writing culture. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not really update to date with the recent happenings in the GA world, so I think I'll leave that part to you :) And yeah, it'd be really great if this continues. When the project first started, a lot of stuff happened, articles promoted, new ones created, but as the original members started to retire and die out, it sort of drifted into inactivity. Perhaps with this and other things to come we can start the project booming again. Spebi05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chatted with the BrownBot's owner and he will do the spamming for us. Can you tweak the links to the archive and start an opt out list and we will be good to go. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey belated congrats
I've been extremely busy lately so I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I did a couple of months back. Congrats on the RFA... I'd like to think you were successful because of the editor review I did ;) Seriously though, it was pretty obvious then that you were well on your way. Cheers! -- Flyguy649talk06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and welcome back :) The review you gave me really helped, more than the usual sort of stuff I get from editor reviews. Thanks again. Spebi06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting it by months and that was why I didn't include Riverina that was passed in November - since it's easier to keep track using a set date. I hope it continues as well. I've just put up two GACs but it might be a while before anyone gets to them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An award for you
Seb26/Archive, I am pleased to issue you with the Drover's Award. The Award is given to Australian Wikipedians who work tirelessly behind the scenes, especially on WikiProject and Portal maintenance tasks. Thanks for your contributions which help build a better encyclopedia. —Moondyne00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just wanted to add a word of thanks regarding the CSS fact styling, I was beginning to think nobody would answer that question. Have a great day Mfko01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I've seen about 3 live performances of that song, and the version on their latest DVD is by far the best. Spebi04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you please talk some sense into User:Demantos. He is trying to merge Godsmack discography with Godsmack. Godsmack has enough music to warrent a seperate article for discography, and any substantially successful band has one on wikipedia. Please comment on his talk page, and comment here.
I've made a comment. I don't think it will be merged, it seems a lot of people (including those with article writing experience in the area, e.g. M3tal H3ad, WesleyDodds) are opposed to it, and I can't see any valid points from Demantos so far. Spebi04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering why you chose this article to go on the main page at this early stage? It's still being worked on by myself, and it has a huge "under construction" notice. I'd appreciate if you could pick some other article that has been there longer, whilst I finish it off. Thanks Redrocketboy08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind closing this FLC? I am the nominator, and although I have passed (and in two cases, failed) my past stuff, in this case there is enough support to pass, but still opposition, so I want to avoid any criticism and not close it. Thanks, Scorpion042203:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the clarification on that. I've not really been involved much with ANI in the past, and wasn't sure whether it should still be taken care of via AIAV. I've came a long way since you gave me my first barnstar, but there's still room for me to learn new things. ;) --Dreaded Walrustc05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, your name rang a bell in my mind :) That's okay, it took a little while for me to get used to these sorts of things. Look forward to seeing you on the wiki soon :) Spebi05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of the following statement in WP:CSD#G4:
This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).
When I made the deletion, I checked the log and it appeared to have been deleted several times under the same criterion, and wasn't really aware of that particular detail of G4. I've took the time before making this reply to do a full thorough read of WP:CSD again to pick up on any details that I've missed, and to avoid conflicts like these again. I'm sorry for any problems my mistakes could have caused. Spebi04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Spebi 06:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. --Paul Erik (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
