Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:51, 22 June 2006

MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY

Talk archives:

clocks

the page had been marked as a copyvio for three weeks, and as coldplaying.com states nowhere that they took the text from wikipedia but instead says that the site is copyrighted by them, what else should i have done in that situation? after almost a month, nobody had done a thing to make it clear that the page wasn't a copyvio, and the deletion was done according to policy. the other "complaint" was not a complaint, but a question, as the user leaving the comment had no familiarity with wikipedia copyright policy and was curious as to why that particular page had been deleted. (That page should have been deleted.)

Sorry if this sounds snippy, but i did nothing against policy in this situation. There was absolutely no way for someone to know that the text was taken from wikipedia, as you didn't leave your note on the talk page until you recreated the article . . . I am always as careful as possible not to delete pages unnecessarily; following up on notes on the talk page, deleting and then restoring a version without any copyvio in the history, etc. but there was no note on the talk page, no possibility of cleaning the history, no reference at coldplaying.com, and ultimately nothing to lead me to believe that the article was clean . . .

So sorry it got deleted, but again, i'm really not sure what else i could have done.

cheers

--He:ah? 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay

Can you look up the history and revert to a version good enough, even if it's old? I gues you can choose a better than me. Aslo, find a better image, please. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind abotu the image, it was a vandalized one, I reverted it to a good version. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:ColdplayAROBTTH.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ColdplayAROBTTH.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:The Amazing Race 9

I'd like a response on your opinion, since you removed the link I added, if you don't mind... just want to alert you that I made a note about it. -- SonicAD (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:BrushfireFairytales.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BrushfireFairytales.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 13:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Andrew

I do not like being ignored, especially as you seemed so quick to disagree with my article, now you can't even be bothered to muster up a reply.

Archive 04, Number 21.

I would appreciate your comments.

Will 11:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the results of the Adam and Andrew Article for Deletion process yielded a near unanminous decision to delete the article. I didn't vote in the poll, I simply reviewed the votes and opinions to close the poll and delete the article. Once again, if you believe that the article is worthy of un-deletion, then submit it to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Otherwise, belittling administrators for deleting your article (per comments on Talk:Icy_Hot_Stuntaz), despite the obvious AfD results of your Adam and Andrew article can be considered a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you belive that the Icy Hot Stuntaz article is non-notable, then you can bring up a 2nd AfD, if you please. Attack the content, not other users. --Madchester 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the article for the Icy Hot Stuntaz, I also believe that this deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Everything here (aside from the 'made up one day in school' type articles, which I can't remember the accurate name of), in my mind, deserves to stay, as, if it happened, it should be in an encyclopedia.

Adam and Andrew in particular had a significant effect on the description of the Emo, which had been widely spread throughout the Internet.

My comments on the Icy Hot Stuntaz talk page were in no way an attempt to belittle you, because the criticism was a somewhat emo example of sarcasm directed at the method in which articles on Wikipedia are moderated, not specifically to you.

Will 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

h

It+s my article, i wrote most of it. and you have no right to delete a article because you dont agree with the ideology behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)

Jagjeet Mann

It looks like you forgot to protect Jagjeet Mann when you Deletedpage'd it. Unsurprisingly, it's been vandalised repeatedly. Seems simpler to draw your attention to it than to try to work out how to get it protected elsewhere... — Haeleth Talk 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Keaneband.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Keaneband.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crowscream

could you please explain to me what your reasons are for deleting my report on the aaron donahue article. the greatest concern about the aaron article in the first place was that he wasnt sourched and not notable enough. so i took the time to write why i believe he is. this has nothing to do with starting the article on another page, if you read through the text on the talkpage you will clearly see that i am trying to verivy aaron by providing legimite links.

in other words i am trying to sourch him, and provide a list of his accomplishments. if i cant get this through the wiki board, i will have to wait for aarons book to come out before i start another page on him.

NN

Why do you keep following ed dames, i know your one of his lackies. i keep sending messages to the varies parties involved in the deletions, but they dont answer me. i wonder if they feel guilty.

Goes Wrong......

Someone had make The Amazing Race 9 goes wrong. You had to fix it. Aleenf1 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already fix it. Cheers Aleenf1 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code

In regards to your sockpuppet warning, I also believe 67.101.128.103, 67.100.49.172, 67.101.128.6, and just about every IP in the 67.*.*.* range in the edit history of the Da Vinci Code is the same guy. But not in 66.*.*.* range, those are likely User:Rodgerbales, who I have talked to and has complied with my requests and DOES NOT start edit wars that violate the 20 reverts rule. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

Thank you very much for your help with the KNHC_(FM) article. Your work is much appreciated. 66.165.21.53 06:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hganesan's block

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Hganesan for an extra 48 hours. The way I understand the blocking mechanism, since you blocked for a longer length while the previous block was active, it won't take effect. You have to unblock and then reblock for the desired length. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this doesn't matter now. Hganesan decided to personally attack another contributor, so I have restarted the 48 hour block from scratch. The block probably should have been longer, but it probably won't matter. Thanks anyway. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Hganesan

I saw you banned him previously. He's supposed to be banned for a week. He got his IP unbanned from another admin[1]. He's back to editing wars and posting pov. Reverting back to his old edits. Basically, destroying Steve Nash/Kobe Bryant pages again. [2] -EW

User:12.134.204.214

Thanks for blocking him. I notice that you blocked the IP for 24 hours which I fear will be insufficient. I believe this user is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan mentioned above. The pages and selections edited, comments and styles are essentially the same. The username and a number of IPs were blocked on May 19 and he seems to have found a new IP. I have added [3] and [4] to document this. Simishag 07:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, he's returned. Added [5] to document this time. Thanks in advance. Simishag 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this guy is really going overboard he just posted this on my page :'Duhon all that hganesan and I are doing are posting articles and putting on relevant facts that you are deleting, and you are loving steve nash like no other. Something should be done to you.; I'm not saying thats a threat but its pretty close, funny thing is i never even edited any of his Nash stuff.

Duhon 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me

I am apparently caught in an AOL "wide net" block for the last 3 hours. I am trying to edit one of the pages I created. It says you are looking for a vandal with IP address 152.163.100.68--Hokeman 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buondelmonte being blocked?

My bona-fide Opera Project friend Buondelmonte is apparently being blocked by you. Maybes an IP mix-up? Can you please let me know what is happening? Thanks. - Kleinzach 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know his IP address to be able to unblock it. Your friend is probably using a shared IP address and another vandal was probably using it yesterday. --Madchester 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buondelmonte tells me he is on AOL. Does that help to explain what has happened? If so what advice can we give him? He is not an overly 'technical' user. - Kleinzach 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's very difficult to remove a block, if I don't know your friend's IP address. I've been working on a rash of vandalism patrols lately and I don't want to release an IP used by a blocked vandal editor.... I don't want to release the IP addresses of such editors prematurely. --Madchester 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

Nice trying to accuse me of vandalism when I have already stated the reason for removing the statement. I didn't remove a section, I removed a statement, so you can atleast get that straight. Also, try providing the direct link to Rotten's verifiability, because the page you listed doesn't talk about Juggernaut. Also, pay attention to the Talk Page, but you were out voted when it comes to waiting until Friday to post the bit of trivia. By adding the continuously, after it has been agreed upon that it should wait till it can be verified by the movie itself, you are in fact vandalizing the page. Bignole 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would suggest reviewing the sources provided; which have in turn also been referenced by RottenTomatoes, more or less the internet standard in film reviews. It is a poor-faith deletion to remove information independently verified by multiple reviewers on separate websites. --Madchester 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Madchester, I'm going to unblock Bignole. I understand that you feel this information is sufficiently verified for inclusion, but that does not make its removal by those who feel otherwise 'vandalism'. Bignole was clearly operating based on his belief that the official theatrical release could be different from pre-screenings. I have no idea how accurate that is, but his actions were clearly based on reason rather than a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia (i.e. 'vandalism'). Further, you violated 3RR in your edit war with him. That is itself a blockable offense... and blocking someone while engaged in a content dispute with them is one of the very few things admins are specifically precluded from doing. Please, let's all take a step back and find some way to resolve this peacefully. Waiting three days seemed like a reasonable compromise, but failing that... it ought to be possible to say something like, 'While the movie has not officially opened yet it has been reported that there is a scene where blah blah blah...'. Gets the desired info into the article, but preserves the disclaimer that the final release version has not yet been seen. Acceptable? --CBDunkerson 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that you had edited the text to use 'early reports indicate' wording similar to what I suggested above. I think that makes sense. Hopefully it will be good enough for everyone until Friday. --CBDunkerson 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Averell

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from B.J. Averell, 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 feel 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! Mango juice^talk 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java Earthquake

All in place I think. It's not often I get to create an ITN article so I'm a bit shaky on the procedure!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Julie delpy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Julie delpy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Arniep 13:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection

Hello, Madchester! I noticed that you had protected Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg, but didn't upload it. Doing so leaves the image open for vandalism on Commons; any changes would then be reflected here. See WP:AN#Image protection, where I've included some more details. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race :P

Colin,

http://www.mingpaonews.com/20060601/gma1.htm

does that ineterest you? Kenny, aka SYSS Mouse 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the interesting development at User Talk:Hexadisc and Talk:B.J. Averell, the article in question being one you had shown an interest in. --Maxamegalon2000 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Veronica Mars, please

Having battled on and off with you over spoilers in various articles related to The Amazing Race, I'd like to enlist your help with similar issues in Veronica Mars. People are continually taking spoilers out of it to be newbie-friendly, or for whatever reason, but that's not how it should be done. You get your point across much better than I do, you've had to argue a similar point before, and you're a VM fan, so I think you can sort it out better than I can. Leave me a message either way. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:SomethingStupidVideo.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SomethingStupidVideo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 13:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A music-promo screenshot, licensing tag updated.--Madchester 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you still haven't provided the detailed fair-use rationale for its use in the Nicole Kidman page. See this bit on fair use rationales. Thanks. --Yamla 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a pain, give me a shout if you are confused as to what's going on and why I'm bitching about this. --Yamla 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Madchester! Have a great weekend. --Yamla 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, A Rush of Blood to the Head Tour, was selected for DYK!

On June 11, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Rush of Blood to the Head Tour, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use rollback...

...to revert things that aren't vandalism. Sasquatch t|c 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed in editors making a dispruption to make a point. Last I checked, there's never been a precedent of posting indvidual scores of games in Best-of-7 championship series, whether it was the World Series, NBA Finals, or Stanley Cups. I can see that you're from Edmonton, but you shouldn't let your personal biases get in the way of editing on Wikipedia. --Madchester 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a point. And what does that have to do with you using rollback? To answer your question: the round robins of the World Cup games surely cannot be that much more important than the games of a Stanley Cup final. And I don't even see how adding scores to a template with scores already on it can possibly be interpreted as disruptive. Just watch the use or rollback, do it manually and add an edit summary. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 03:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you noted

I didn't re-add it after said explaination, no need to make block threats -- Tawker 04:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup status on ITN - Coin flip dispute resolution

These daily reversions for and against the World Cup scores are getting rather ridiculous. The fact is both sides have valid arguments, and you can't really say that one side is more "correct" than one another. Personally I don't like how editors are taking sides when these edit wars are not conducive to Wikipedia's daily operations.

I would suggest a simple coin flip to decide whether the scores stay or not. It's a rather standard procedure for dispute resolution. This is probably the best way to resolve the matter once and for all. --Madchester 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angela Merkel.jpg

Please do not protect the image in the version it is right now. As I have pointed out on it's talk page, the copyright for the current image - peach suit and "busy background" - is not licensed correctly (you should have read that on the discussion page). Please unlock and revert yourself or let me know once it is unlocked so I can do so. -- Boereck 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong person, non? --Madchester 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hganesan (yes, again)

After a succession of blocks by numerous admins over the last month, User:Hganesan has returned yet again to Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to waste a bunch of time edit warring with him again, so I'm instead going to try a new tactic. I'd like to get as many NBA editors as possible together on this, so that we can make a single unified push to the appropriate admins. I am at a loss for other tactics we can use to avoid his continued attempts to push his agenda and his unwillingness to compromise. Please contact me at User talk:Simishag if you're interested in helping out. Thanks. Simishag 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Of Cydonia

Hi there. You've now removed the album artwork thumbnail from the single Knights Of Cydonia twice. Can I assume you just didn't read the rest of the article? It discusses the album, in particular the artwork, and its connection to the single. This makes it fair use, for the purpose of illustrating the discussed record. It's an essential illustration for the article to make sense. BigBlueFish 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed it again, this time citing WP:IMAGE and WP:SONG. Now I have read both these project pages and am no closer to understanding why it's there. Overcrowding? It's the only block element in the article besides the infobox. Just because the average song article shouldn't have album artwork on it just by dint of it being on the album, doesn't mean when there is a connection to be discussed that it shouldn't be there. Taking away the image make the article no better, no more legal and in fact harder to follow. So why? BigBlueFish 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines indicate that (song) articles should not be crowded with excessive photos. The Knights of Cydonia article only contains one written section with less than 500 words. It's impractical per the guidelines above (and WP:MoS) to place so many photos within such a short article. Contrast this with the "Get Back" featured article: multiple sections and a word count of over 1800 words. Suffce to say, additional photos to support the text are welcome. --Madchester 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo would be the only non-meta image in the article. 108 of the 255 words in the article are written about it. How does this not only not support the text, but overcrowd the article? BigBlueFish 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, Get Back (song) includes a copy of the artwork for Let It Be (album) despite having no relevance to the song except that it appeared on that album. Its only real value is to add a little instant context in the huge mass of text. To me it puts the discussed image in perspective. BigBlueFish 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility My Aunt Fanny

If I were uncivil, I'd be saying much worse things about you. I'm not really sure why you're so insistent about removing things like noting that the models cited their modeling career for not going through with the head shaving, or why you're wanting to draw your little line in the sand over including the "Frankenberry" nickname but if it makes you feel better to leave it out then by all means I hope you're satisfied, since I have no intention of getting into an edit war with you over it.

One thing you might want to keep in mind, when deleting people's material because they're unable to offer you things like episode numbers when I've yet to see a similar demand for episode numbers in response to any other edit, is that just because you don't happen to remember something doesn't mean that it's unverified.

Have a nice day.

Otto4711 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, edits with no reliable references can be removed by any editor. Note that another editor (User:KsprayDad) also noticed the lack of verifiability to the nickname. While the nickname is used within the fan community, fancruft is not permitted per WP:NOT. --Madchester 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking to me

I've already indicated my intent not to engage with you and I have no interest in seeing your messages on my talk page or anywhere else. I am attempting to "agree to disagree" here, so, with all due respect and all possible civility, step off. Otto4711 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 1 goal game, wouldn't you consider it narrowly

Basically it was a 1 goal game, the empty net was well, an empty net when the game was basically over. It was a pretty close game, don't you think we should leave the narrowly in -- Tawker 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Ian_Curtis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ian_Curtis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ransack page was not only considered and given a disparaging comment. That's why I reverted it. If you want to consider it for deletion, don't print insults, or you'll get one back. user:Mathewignash

Piano Rock

Hey Madchester What sort of sources would you like to see quoted on the Piano Rock page? Most of the info comes from the pages of the referenced artists. I agree the "notable piano rockers..." section is a little bit subjective and has expanded from its original list - the beauty of wikip I guess. Originally I got the notable artists from allmusic.com - would this be enough of a reference? (Westius 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 287: / Line 287: @@
 The Ransack page was not only considered and given a disparaging comment. That's why I reverted it. If you want to consider it for deletion, don't print insults, or you'll get one back. [[user:Mathewignash]]
+== Piano Rock ==
+Hey Madchester
+What sort of sources would you like to see quoted on the [[Piano Rock]] page?
+Most of the info comes from the pages of the referenced artists. I agree the "notable piano rockers..." section is a little bit subjective and has expanded from its original list - the beauty of wikip I guess. Originally I got the notable artists from allmusic.com - would this be enough of a reference?
+([[User:Westius|Westius]] 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC))