User talk:Michig/Archive 20

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy (song).
Message added 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I thought you were going to userfy Wolf Alice rather than the article on the single - presumably you have no objection to me restoring the band article to userspace to work on/merge the single article into? I think that's the first AfD I've seen that has been withdrawn by someone other than the nominator, btw ;) --Michig (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary methods. I'm sure Sarek doesn't mind--after all, the article is technically (!) deleted. Oh, and, eh, ahem, well, I seem to have missed a little icon on your user page, which, apparently, well, may have been there since 2006...didn't realize, sir, my apologies, Mr. Admin yourself! Haha, now I look like a real moron. Yeah, go ahead and do what you like. What should end up happening is a history merge, single into band, and if that AfD had continued it should have properly ended with a merge given the sourcing you indicated. Happy days Michig, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Band article restored and improved (hopefully there will be a bit more to say about them before long). Didn't use anything from the single article in the end, so I deleted it. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You had deleted this article after it was recreated and nominated for deletion a second time. I have nominated it for deletion a third time, and hope that you may look at and possibly contribute to the discussion. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass (English band).
Message added 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ducknish (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Dekker et al.

I share your concerns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Republic page

Well done and much appreciated.--Soul Crusher (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

noteability is a problem why can't you know that? --Indienews (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Michig (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards, Gong show 04:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venini

Hi Michig. I've made some improvements to Venini since you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venini. Could you take a look and see what you think. Thanks. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Daniels

If he is "well known enough" then please can you evidence that? Article is in an awful state... Giant Snowman 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, regularly appearing on his Dad's TV show is probably enough, but he also appeared in several series of The Les Dennis Laughter Show (which I missed for obvious reasons), and presented two series of Game for a Laugh (likewise). He has had starring roles in several pantos and appeared in his own right on stage and screen. A quick Google search found several sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. More for verification: BBC. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was also the host of the national TV version of the game show Lingo ([8]). --Michig (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, cheers! Giant Snowman 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Astronaut AfD

Thanks for digging up those sources at the Bad Astronaut AfD. I have no idea where I was looking, but none of that stuff came up for me when I tried to find sources. —Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

Hello, this article was deleted a couple of months ago, but I feel like it's a valuable subject. I'd like to clean it up and make it a viable article again. MBisanz (talk · contribs) suggested that I ask you for help. What do you think I can do to make the article viable again? From what I can see, it could use cleaning up, formatting, and division into sub-articles - but I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for awhile now and it'd help if you could give me some tips on what I should do. Thanks in advance. -ryand 17:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be difficult, because there are editors who seem to believe that such lists shouldn't be here, but I think a key thing would be to find sources and ensure that content is properly sourced. Lists generally fare better when the items in the list have articles or can be shown to be significant enough to have articles, so finding sources will be important, and concentrating on those entries that have articles or where sources are available could be the place to start, as well as focusing on the information about those programmes that can be verified. As to where you will find sources for Singapore television online I'm not sure. Best of luck. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A barnstar for your ongoing efforts to provide sources at music- and band-related AfD discussions on Wikipedia, such as at the AfD for the Singing Adams article. I appreciate your objectivity and initiative to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation. I do really wish that people would get into the habit of searching for sources themselves and considering alternatives to deletion before taking these articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally always adhere to source searches per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything for deletion at AfD. Many people just don't want it to become required, for various reasons, so spurious AfD nominations will likely occur ad infinitum on Wikipedia. I've seen many arguments defending the non-use of WP:BEFORE; many people prefer for content to be very easily deleted. This isn't a complaint, it's just how it often is. Additionally, sometimes sources are missed despite following source searching. Also, I've noticed a trend in which many AfD nominations lately are valid ones, versus around a year ago, when I was spending a great deal of time there saving clearly notable topics from arbitrary deletion (e.g. "delete per nom," "not encyclopedic," etc.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that we're not going to see an end to them. With a lot of the articles I can see why people don't believe an article is justified, but it seems that in around half of cases merging or redirecting is a much better option that just hasn't been considered. Oh well, off to today's AfD log to see what's what... --Michig (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causing problems again are you. lol

Its more informative and looks better the way I was standardizing - now look how bare you've made the Ras Michael opening. Aesthetics is a part of the experience of acquiring knowledge and as far as I'm concerned that's as good as place as any to state where the article subject originates from. Still this is a de facto American site so articles should be delivered and devoured like a Big Mac.

You've already dropped the "u" out of colour - is there any other adjustments you think we should make to the English language and the way we approach its use here on Wikipedia and in the UK. lol

Being serious now. Fair enough Michig you say the guidelines and MoS stuff says to use this and that form of opening - so I'll comply though I'm starting to think we're looking in the wrong place for the Borg.

Sluffs (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that you had undone the Ras Michael name that I used for the Bio opening. I felt as though that this was different from U-Roy (sobriquet) and Prince Buster (maternally given at birth) in that it was an identity name and tied to his Rastafari upbringing. It seemed more suitable and once again was more aesthetically pleasing - sort of easy to hear and speak. Articles should be like songs - flow, beat, rhythm, motif and feeling - without that its akin to the architectural style of "Brutalism" - all concrete and function without aesthetically pleasing aspects for the public's eye though a commendable demonstration of the architect's desire for modernity. Also whats wrong with reiterating something - I normally reiterated the place and country of birth in the first sentence of the Bio (sometimes with expanded details) to establish a further link from short term memory to long term memory. You've only got 20 mins before the mind starts to lose the heights of concentration (universal) so why not reiterate a bit within the article.

Sluffs (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain "You've already dropped the "u" out of colour"? --Michig (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that may be read wrong. I was in Spain years ago and had a conversation with an American in a bar about the "missing" vowels. Just bar talk and a bit of cross-cultural humour or should I say humor. I did have a look at the George Harrison article which is featured on the front page today and thought that maybe for the sake of editing consistency it may be an idea to use the same form in the opening sentence. As far as spelling goes we could all agree to use "couleur" which would make the French happy since they will have managed to get English speakers to put the vowels back in the right place. lol

BTW you go and format the issue in question and I'll refrain from adding new ones like that. I'm off to do some other articles that are not reggae related. Need a rest from the reggae articles. Nine Gods Festival in Malaysia - bloody Indians get everywhere. lol

Sluffs (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Broomhall

This article, which you PROD'd, was restored on request at my talk page, you may wish to review it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Hackett

Previously you've deprod the article Liam Hackett after an unregistered user 2.24.249.101 had nominated the article for deletion. This time, another user 129.215.5.255 nominated the article again for deletion. What can I do to prevent the article to be deleted? How do i Provide reasons for NOT deleting the article and all? I dont know what to do and I'm not sure if I should remove the tag since its by an unregistered user. I dint know who to contact so I contact the closes Admin that had done some edits to the article. Please Help & Thanks in advance! =] Nicholance (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's at AfD, the tag must not be removed. The best course of action would be to contribute at the AfD discussion, explaining why you feel the subject should have an encyclopedia article, with reference to notability guidelines. Any coverage in reliable sources that you can identify will also likely help your case. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Sully

Perhaps in future you could have the decency to use your administrator's authority in a more consistent and neutral way. You obviously didn't notice that I repeatedly sought discussion under the BRD principle. Instead all I received was the bullying use of warnings on my talk page. This is completely unacceptable. It is also clearly unacceptable and ridiculous for the other editor to hide behind an assertion of the WP:BURDEN policy by challenging and then removing such non-contentious information as what school Sandra Sully went to but also totally ignoring the significant amount of actual potentially contentious information. There needs to be some consistency and common sense with adding citation needed tags to articles. If we had to remove all non-contentious information just because someone challenged it with no better reason than "it might have all been made up" then we would need to remove a significant amount of probably accurate information from nearly all articles. It's no wonder that so many people give up editing on Wikipedia when they have to put up with such ridiculous behaviour by other editors and inconsistent "mediation" from administrators. Afterwriting (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I haven't used any administrator authority here. I simply warned you for edit warring, as any editor could have done, and quite frankly some other editors, having seen the edit war going on, would probably have sought a block for both of you by now for far exceeding already the three revert rule. You don't 'seek discussion' by constantly reverting, you do it by starting a discussion on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the other editor concerned. We have strict policies around biographies of living persons and any editor can remove unsourced information that they feel is contentious. Of course the judgment of what is and is not contentious will vary between editors. For this reason the other editor had some justification for removing this information, although edit-warring from both sides was not helpful. I would suggest that if you wish to improve this article you look for sources which can be used to expand the article with properly referenced material. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Andrew (clown)

Hi. Would you please userfy this article to my user space? I still think there's a valid article, and would like to take a shot at expanding it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - restored to User:Beyond My Ken/Merry Andrew (clown). Best of luck. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band)

Dear Michig, as you are an admin who contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducktails (band) and knows about our band policy could I ask you to have a look at the article User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band) and the process of keeping it out of WP. My feeling is the article's subject is notable enough for main space and would survive an Afd but I think the new user who created it has not had much joy from the deleting admin. There was some discussion here: User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Ducktails (band) and here User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Ducktails (band) revised. I think moving the article to mainspace and then perhaps sending it to Afd, if needed and as the creator asked for ("Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible?" ), would be best. If you think all is OK as is then no worries. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)) PS: I would ask the deleting admin directly but have had problems with them before.[reply]

I don't see any involvement of mine in that AfD, but in my view the coverage from Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, BBC and Allmusic is sufficient to establish notability via both the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Some of the sources used would not pass WP:RS, but there are enough that do. The references need tidying up and the prose needs copyediting, but as the recent discussion was starting to show, this would likely survive AfD if taken there and allowed to run for 7 days. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly sorry you are right - I don't know where I got you name from then. But anyway do you know how to proceed to get the article back to mainspace? (Msrasnw (talk) Sorry I got your name from this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Donkeys (band) I was mixing them up!!!! (Msrasnw (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps it might help if I dealt with some of the issues around the references and gave it a quick copyedit, then we could go back to the deleting admin to request that it is restored - what do you think? Since it's in User:Marcushamblett's userspace, have you discussed it with them? --Michig (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help a lot - changing the tone and some tidying is all that is needed. I haven't discussed it with Marcushamblett but suspect they might have been put off as their interactions here have not been good. They haven't edited since 21 April. We have their earlier request to the deleting admin. "Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible?" And I think that could be enough just to get the artice back for normal editing in the mainspace. I would rather not interact in anyway with the deleting admin. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, I'll have a go at it. I've found about another 50 sources that could be used, so there should be little doubt about its suitability to return to mainspace. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and added a lot of sources. There are a lot of other sources that specifically cover the III and Flower Lane albums, and I think these should have separate articles. I'll come back later to read it through and copyedit to get the prose to flow better, but in the meantime if you have any feedback please feel free to let me know. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Splendid work. If/when Marcushamblett comes back I guess he'll be very impressed. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks guys! I am pleased. Do I need to do anything to return it to mainspace? Msrasnw why would you rather not interact in anyway with me?! I'm a nice person. Marcushamblett (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read his comment, it's me he'd rather not interact with - which again I'd ask "why?...I'm a nice person" I'm even nice to move-warriors, and people who ignore message :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a note at the talk page of the admin who deleted it as a courtesy and all being well it will be back in mainspace by tomorrow. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now restored. --Michig (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid - and thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

American Idol (season 13)

Can you please restored the deleted links on the article before? It is now announced. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new article at American Idol (season 13). Having looked at the deleted version there is nothing there that can usefully be restored. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Michig! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Blue jay AfD

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Blue jay as redirect. I missed that AfD, but the article has the same problem as WP:Articles for deletion/Rigby Raccon: it is an unattributed split created by User:Temastok (messy cross-page diff). Would you consider reclosing as delete or delete and redirect to remove the WP:Copying within Wikipedia-violating revisions in the history? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unnecessary given that it is now a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If I had made the Rigby Raccon argument at the Mordecai AfD (completely applicable except for exact diffs), would that have affected your close? Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments that affected the overall consensus could have changed the outcome, but the close reflected the arguments put forward at the time. --Michig (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably file at WP:Deletion review to modify the outcome, not challenge your evaluation of consensus. I need to check the consensus on an underlying point, so it may be a while. Thanks for discussing. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cola page

Hi, you took down a page I created a while ago. I had made multiple changes to it, but I guess it still didn't meet the guidelines. I would like to retry, and if you could help me fix my past mistakes, that would be great. Thank you. Dsteffenhagen (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in replying. The key issue at the AfD was a lack of significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. If you can identify such coverage then there might be a chance of creating an article that would stand up to scrutiny. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blur (band) again

Hi Michig, that single-purpose account IP is back at the Blur article, edit-warring over the genres and the years active. Do you think it is possible to put the article under protection once again?—indopug (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy the last couple of days, but I'll keep an eye on it and look at protecting it if it continues. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Gaze AfD

Hi Michig,

Would you mind taking a look at my recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu gaze (3rd nomination)??? Thanks!!!!!BROBAFETT (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts

Hey Michig, long time. I was curious where I could find written parameters regarding associated acts, as I couldn't find anything on MOS:INFOBOX. I did insert a few of those you deleted from Beenie Man, so was curious why they don't belong. --Chimino (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The guidance is at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. Most of those that were in the article seemed to fit into the "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song" or "Groups that are merely similar" categories, which are specifically to be avoided. --Michig (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood, though I would argue Beenie & Bounty definitely are associated through their 15+ year rivalry and tunes made against the other.--Chimino (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dirty House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dirty House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Snub TV

Thanks for your input in the AfD. If you could find it in yourself to briefly expand the the British section using a couple of those sources, it might serve to pacify the situation. As far as the US series goes I am looking into having a respected journalist do some research and hopefully deliver something definitive. Will take time. If the unsourced content has to go in the meantime, so be it. I do have a COI so I have to tread gently. There's little doubt that Duffy was the original founder, with sources to back it up. He had nothing to do with the UK series, however. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do later. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be resolving itself. Also see discussion here. Looks to me like your comment in the AfD got corrupted? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that - looks like it's as it was when I added it. Sorry, haven't been able to do anything this evening as my laptop has been tied up watching the speedway. --Michig (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I didn't check, but it seemed uncharacteristic for you to add a quote as a link. If you could manage a brief history of the UK series, with dates, that would be great. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charlie Chaplin (singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

>Larkin, Colin:'' The Virgin Encyclopedia of Reggae'', Virgin Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7535-0242-9</ref>) is a [[Jamaica]]n [[dancehall]] and [[ragga]] [[Deejay (Jamaican)|deejay]] and singer. It was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackie Guy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeamNG was deleted? It cleary has revelence

The page of BeamNG was taken down. Yet the page RigsofRods is still up. BeamNG is a more popular sequel, yet ou deleted it.

One of the trailers has over 3 million views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppTmsNFneg

So clearly, it's relevant?

I think it's unfair that you've taken this down, their are thousands of players, so clearly it is relevant.

Please stop this blatant censorship, their are way less relevant things on here.

The game is getting bigger all the time, and Wikipedia is a good place for people to find out what's happening. You['re directly imposing on that knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilliang (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeamNG Cilliang (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not imposing on any knowledge and this is not 'censorship'. There was a community discussion lasting 7 days that anyone could contribute to and in which there was a clear consensus to delete the article. I simply closed the discussion and deleted the article in accordance with that consensus. --Michig (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-open the discussion. I feel that the users necessary to vote in favour of BeamNG were not aware of said discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.131.181 (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sir are an asshole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just4beam (talk • contribs)

That has lost you any chance of getting help from me on this issue. Perhaps collaborative projects based on consensus are not for you. --Michig (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack?

You obviously can't take criticism well, and you're using your bias on censorship. You might want to re-avaluate how you do your work, because obviously you don't know what your doing, and you can't take any criticism.

What help could you even offer? What you did so far is anything but "help" , maybe you have some bias against me or what I have submitted, but whatever it is, just stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilliang (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go away. I'm really not interested in your nonsense. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help - Miyazato

Tried to create an Article for creation page on Shoei Miyazato and it doesn't seem to be allowing me to do so and recreated it in the main space. I'd settle for moving it into a sandbox area.

I'm not trying to be a pain, but it seems very clear to me that the individual meets notability requirements, despite the limited discussion. I just have to prove it and haven't had time to pull my references out of the basement.

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for you to work on this would be in a sandbox subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Aggie80/Sandbox. I assume you have the article content to put there but if not let me know. You will need to deal with the issues that led to deletion before restoring the article to main space. --Michig (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's post-punk obscurity, to brighten your morning

Nyam Nyam. Needs third-party coverage, but the quotes on the LTM page about the release suggest it does in fact exist. The LTM interview needs digestion into the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look to see what I can find but it doesn't look promising from my sources. No entry in either The Encyclopedia of Indie & New Wave or The Great Indie Discography and no entries on the UK Indie Chart. I have one or two others that might have something...--Michig (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [9], [10]. There's the briefest of mentions in Shadowplayers but nothing usable. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I actually had that issue of Mojo too ... somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for editing while you were writing

Apologies for editing while you were doing a major edit on the page and for any problems this caused. The notice wasn't on the page when I started the edit and I was not cautious enough with the edit conflict to see it. My apologies. I'll wait before adding anything else. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]