User talk:J04n


User Page	Talk	Contributions	My awards	Articles created

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Discussion tracking

Contributions by J04n to: User talks · Article talks · Wikipedia talks

Welcome!

Hello, J04n, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Didz93 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead

A tag has been placed on The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Didz93 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of covers

Hi ... I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy with regards to albums like this so I can't advise you, but you can request help here as described further up the page. Best of luck. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: You need to put the helpme code on THIS page (discussion), not your userpage. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helpme}} I believe this is an important album, let me work on it, and give me tips to make it acceptable

Please follow the instructions on the template to ask for more time. Place {{hangon}} below the template, and then ask for more time on the talk page. If you have any other questions, ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tag deleted!

Hi, I've just deleted the speedy delete tag and replaced it with a notability one to encourage other people to expand the article. Sorry, should've added the notability tag instead of the delete tag in the first place. Didz93 (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references to the article to document that the album is notable, and I've gone ahead and removed the Notability template. See Talk:The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead#Notability. I recommend that you follow the links there, to read more about what "notability" means on Wikipedia. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I panicked when I saw the speedy delete tag -J04n (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Music Never Stopped.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Music Never Stopped.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here is that the album cover image did not have a template indicating the type of copyright, so a bot tagged it for possible future deletion. I've taken care of that by adding the appropriate template, which is {{Non-free album cover}}. (I also removed the Untagged template). When you upload an album cover image, you can either add that manually, or it will be added for you if you select "album cover" in the Licensing drop-down list. On the plus side, you did have a fair use rationale specific to the article, so that's a good thing. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 05:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: li value

I can answer that. Thanks for your curiosity. Well, I did the li value thing for the track listing and how the numbering is distributed in front of each track. Below displays how the track listing was before.

Side one

"Computer God" – 6:10
"After All (The Dead)" – 5:37
"TV Crimes" – 3:58
"Letters From Earth" – 4:12
"Master Of Insanity" – 5:54

Side two

"Time Machine" – 4:10
"Sins Of The Father" – 4:43
"Too Late" – 6:54
"I" – 5:10
"Buried Alive" – 4:47

Notice how the track listing goes like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now, with the addition of the li value code, I made the track listing appear like so:

Side one

"Computer God" – 6:10
"After All (The Dead)" – 5:37
"TV Crimes" – 3:58
"Letters From Earth" – 4:12
"Master Of Insanity" – 5:54

Side two

"Time Machine" – 4:10
"Sins Of The Father" – 4:43
"Too Late" – 6:54
"I" – 5:10
"Buried Alive" – 4:47

Notice how the track listing's numerals are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. That's what the li value did. So, if you want to put down a different number for a track listing or any other listing, without having the default labeling of 1, 2, 3, etc. then use this code: #<li value = desired number>.

There are various other codes involving the li code, but that is the one I prefer to use. Thanks for your curiosity, once again.

BT^C 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

Current Def Leppard guitarist Vivian Campbell was in Dio for several years, albums, and tours. That definitely makes Dio a Def Leppard related band. Gringo300 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track numbers

About your recent edits adding the "li value" tag to Grateful Dead album articles, I was really thinking that the track numbers in the article should correspond to the actual CD track numbers. They do that when you add the tag to single CDs that were originally released as LPs, like this, but not when you add the tag to have track numbers cross discs, like this. In other words, I really think it's better not to have track numbers span multiple discs. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to your opinion since you do more with Grateful Dead related sites than I do. -J04n (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Track listing. It's a bit ambiguous but I think they're saying the same thing: "If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named 'Disc one', 'Disc two' and so on." Also if you look at other album articles about albums that have more than one disc, you'll find that the track numbers pretty consistently start over with each disc, to correspond to the CD track numbers. Anyway, I'll go ahead and undo those edits, unless you get to it first. Thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed -J04n (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 18:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:One Day It Will Please Us To Remember Even This.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:One Day It Will Please Us To Remember Even This.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Black Sabbath

Heya. In this edit [1] you changed "Ozzy" to "Osbourne". Normally I'd agree in that the latter is far more encyclopedic-sounding, but it was in a direct quote; and I suspect the quoted person actually did say "Ozzy". Were you correcting an error in the quote, or was it a mistake on your part? Let me know. Cheers ~ mazca ^t|c 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a mistake on my part, thanks for catching it. Went a little first->last name crazy today. I'll fix it. -J04n (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, no problem. Thanks for fixing. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 23:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:PHARM:CAT

If avaliable, we would love your additional comments, feedback, and/or help. kilbad (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds like fun. Should I just look at the proposed categories at PHARM:CAT and make comments on the talk page? J04n (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. kilbad (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dio

Yeah, you're right, and I apologize. I just assumed the "Dio" article still applied to the band. Shows what I know. Thanks for the heads-up. --Cubs Fan ^(Talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal reviews

I'm attempting discussion on the involved parties' talk pages. Alas, as with so many IP users, they're mostly refusing to get the point. So it will likely just be a case of waiting until they lose interest. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I totally agree. It's endlessly frustrating to always look at my watchlist and see more damn IP edits ignoring the guidelines :/ And even when you explain the guidelines to them they just ignore them. I've seen stats quoted about IP users mostly making useful contributions, but I refuse to believe that. The fact is that the majority of IP edits are disruptive, and the majority of disruptive edits are from IP users. It just causes trouble and lets people treat wikipedia like their own personal website rather than a community. Prophaniti (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unfortunate problem in wikipedia, dealing with IP users. You can't explain things to them, because they just tend to ignore it; you can't revert them, because then you get blocked for "edit warring"; and you can't inform admins of it because they usually just say "It's just an IP user" or some such. There's no real system in place. At least not that I'm aware of. Prophaniti (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting that abuse from my talk page while I was offline, I really appreciate it. Cheers! :) Versus22_talk 16:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorizd GA

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in uncategorized Good Articles spring 2009 elimination drive. We value your assistance to ensure that the talk pages of GA are of good quality. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol for edits (re "Smoke on the Water")

In the "Smoke on the Water" article, you completely reversed an edit by IP 74.59.161.59 on 2009 March 27. I partially reversed your reversal. I can see where the edit needed correction as verbose (in that left/right panning issues are superfluous, not part of composition), but recognizing the introduction of distorted organ along with the hi-hat was a valid correction in my opinion.

I add this note not to argue these issues, but to comment on two things that I thought were wrong with your edit.

1) The edit was flagged as "minor". I see the change as material to the meaning, and in no way superficial. Reviewing the article on what is considered a minor edit in Wikipedia, I see this as an error.

2) Your description ("unreference change to accepted section") was incomprehensible to me; even looking at the history of the article, I still contort to apply it. Does it mean that the edit reverses a change to an "accepted" (i.e. what? long lasting without debate or change?) section because the change was made without reference to any authority?

I must say, Wikipedia is a momentous project. It'll be interesting to see if we can manage to agree with each other, at least concerning the meaning of things. Cheers.

Willondon (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE edits to Ronnie James Dio discography

The certification I listed was in the UK. RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America. The British website is www.bpi.co.uk, that is where these things should be checked. I sourced my facts from Black Sabbath discography which cited having checked the BPI website.

You HAVE however alerted me to a discrepancy there; the BPI website does not list the certifications listed on the Sabbath discography page. As you've taken an interest, any ideas what I should do? I think the BPI website must be wrong, the sales figures it gives don't sound at all right to me though it's never failed me before since it's an official record:

We Sold Our Soul for Rock And Roll - Silver
Sabbath Bloody Sabbath - Silver
Sabotage - Silver
Heaven & Hell - Gold
Mob Rules - Silver
The Collection - Gold
The Best of Black Sabbath - Gold

There's no way in hell that Heaven & Hell is their best selling album in the UK and no way that the best selling Ozzy era albums are SBS and Sabotage. It appears the official source is wrong. Advice? (The Elfoid (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Roma/Romani disambig

Hi! I saw that you've made some clean-up in various Roma/Romani articles. I have to ask to be more cautious because Roma is used with a double meaning: once as a name for all Romani people, and once as a proper name for the Roma - roughly the Romanies from Eastern Europe. So, when the article (or the section) talks strictly about the Roma, you can disambiguate to "Roma (Romani subgroup)", but when it talks about other Romani groups, or, generally about the Romani people, then you disambiguate to "Romani people". See this map for the historical distribution of the Romani people: [2]. Kenshin (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No major problems, good luck:) Kenshin (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, if you are not sure, use "Romani people", you can't go wrong with "Romani people". In fact, in most cases, "Romani people" is the best name. Kenshin (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath

I've never been any good at reviewing GA candidates, and in this case, I'm kind of biased in regards to being a big Sabbath fan, so I'm probably not the best person to review the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Black Sabbath

Hello there! The article you nominated, Black Sabbath, has been placed on hold at its GA review. Please see the talkpage for details. Unfortunately, I was so busy working on the review, that I did not notice that you have announced that you'd be away at the same time I was doing my review! My apologies for that. You may address the concerns when you have returned from being away. :) Have a great week! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Let my pride.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Let my pride.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I thought you had left Wikipedia, so I did all those editions—to not let the article fails with the nomination. Only later that I was read your talk page...--Canniba loki 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, both of you! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept your terms and conditions.--Canniba loki 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All we need now are the books containing biographies of Black Sabbath, to replace the references of Rockdetector site.--Canniba loki 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your incredible work on Black Sabbath, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the impeccable work! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Chagatai Khan; Tous, Iran; Ahmad Nahavandi; Iranian women; Sanandaj; Sabzevar; Shah Rukh (Timurid dynasty); Sistan; Alavids; Afsharid dynasty; Abu Sa'id (Timurid dynasty); Jafar Khan; Uyghur people; Bandar Abbas; Khoy; Muhammad II of Khwarezm; Asadi Tusi; Nazim; Tahirid dynasty

Cleanup: Tabriz; Aratta; Kingdom of Mangalai
Merge: Islamic conquest of Afghanistan; Tehran Conference; Mughal architecture
Add Sources: Shah Rukh of Persia; Gur-e Amir; Turkestan
Wikify: Sattar; Hossein Fatemi; Greater and Lesser Tunbs
Expand: Epididymitis; Qutaibah bin Muslim; Akhoond

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Hell

Heaven and Hell's The Devil You Know Lands in U.S. Top 10 You saw that?--Canniba loki 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this? Sabbath Bloody Sabbath: The Battle for Black Sabbath--Canniba loki 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Canniba loki 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists

I would like to see the feature described in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Articles_on_no_watchlists implemented. I made an identical suggestion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Watched_counter and it's pretty far along. I don't feel encouraged about actually getting anything done on that proposals page, given that what seems like a well-discussed, advanced, and solid variant of your proposal has been slowly dying for a couple weeks. The problem might just be that it's not at the bottom of the page, or has too much text to read through. Thoughts? –M^T 03:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not much happens with yours, I think I might end up waiting a couple of weeks, and then re-proposing with a clearer and shorter outline. The thing is, even if the bored kid (nevermind having a registered account - just an ip) edited a bunch of "unwatched" articles, those vandal edits would end up smack at the top of the very slow-moving "recent unwatched changes" page. At this point, we can turn on the feature we'd like to see with 0 problems. Ah well, we'll see how it goes. –M^T 08:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the proposal for the recent-unwatched-pages (which solves the watched-count vandal problem) has lasted longer than I thought. I don't know if I'll be re-proposing soon, since this has gotten a bit of attention, but you may want to look over the current proposal and leave a vote here, if you're still interested. M 02:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DISAMBIG

I don't know if I am in the right place, but all my fixes for Lloyd George just disappeared from the leaderboard? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs the tool? Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks! Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Sorry about that. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. :)

You were right in deleting my change, it was already there. I'll keep editing when i can. :) Yonobi (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link changes

Hi J04n! I have noticed that you have been changing a lot of links in a clearly good-faith attempt to avoid disambiguation pages and such. However, some not-so-good edit fall through the cracks. For example, here you replaced a relevant disambiguation link with an irrelevant one. I have seen a few more examples but mostly decided to ignore them at this point (didn't have much time). Please be more careful and try to manually follow the links before making the edit. Also keep in mind the context. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I have indeed noticed that you were not just mindlessly changing the links, but actually thinking about the context. However, it's not always correct or relevant. For example, linking to Palestine when the text says Palestinian is not helpful, because of the many definitions that both terms have. At least the term Palestinian gives the reader a general direction (and who doesn't know what a Palestinian is?), which Palestine brings them to an article about a vague geopolitical region which usually has nothing to do with what is said in the original article. Generally there should either be a link to Palestinian people or Palestinian territories. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork Ratings on Kiss Albums

Please DO NOT revert my changes. I will explain why I made them later. EthanEndlessNameless (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry it took me so long to update, but please add the ratings back. I found archive versions of the reviews for the Kiss albums at http://web.archive.org/web/20030601204349/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/k/ (scroll down to find Kiss). Could you add the ratings back and link them to these reviews? Thanks. EthanEndlessNameless (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice type

Thank you for your comments/edits on Talk:Vince Neil#Voice type. I wonder if this also applies to Tamara Johnson-George. In particular, this edit, which was partially reverted. Thanks for your input. Plastikspork (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your disambiguation fixes are much appreciated! Nvineeth (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disam Hall

Thank you! :) I try. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! You made my day. Cheers, twirligig_T to^the C 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have one of these (and you can never have enough anyway!)

		The Music Barnstar
		For all your numerous edits in the field of music. Keep up the good work! – B.hotep •talk• 07:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus sought

There is a new consensus question posted at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if available, your comments would be greatly appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the award regarding the Bruce D article...yeah there was certainly a lot of editing involved! Kohran (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Joe Hepperle

Thank you for noticing and awarding a 'Barnstar of Diligence' for my edit on Ace Frehley page. Take care -- Joe Hepperle (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

polka tulk

Hi,

Sorry for taking so long to reply to you.I don't know if I'm doing this right because I'm new to wikipedia. I got the information on the name Polka Tulk from the sleeve notes of the double CD album 'The Best of Black Sabbath'. I will dig these up and get back to you on this in more detail. Please let me know if this is not considered a reliable source of information. Like I said, I'm a greenhorn here...

Cheers, Theredserpent (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levaquin article

Appreciate your interest in the Levaquin article, but unfortunately I had to remove your recent edit. You had provided a link from "side effects" to an article about adverse reactions. There is a definate distinction to be made between the two. A side effect is NOT the one and the same as an adverse reaction. A side effect is something that takes place WHILE you are taking a drug and abates once the drug is discontinued, or shortly there after. Whereas an adverse event is the damage done to your body as a result of being on the medication and an adverse event does not abate when you discontinue the medication. The damage has already been done. And at times such reactions result in permanent injury, disability, or even death. A side effect is a minor annoyance in comparision to an adverse reaction which is a serious medical complication that requires immedate intervention to prevent further harm to the patient. Comparing apples to oranges as they say.

Regards,Davidtfull (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath covers

Hello! I haven't been here for a long time...As I see the article has been deleted but I don't understand: WHY? Why is it considered to be trivia? Isn't it an important article? Everything can be checked...--Slav9ln (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange for me that in Russia and Spain it hasn't been deleted (not considered to be unimportant) and in the motherland of Black Sabbath it is so :( Thanks for answer!!--Slav9ln (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]