User talk:Rzrscm
|
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Lightning Swords of Death
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Lightning Swords of Death requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. 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 musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Etrigan (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Lightning Swords of Death
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Etrigan (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
MA
[edit]The site contravenes WP:EL because it provides no information that could not be included in a properly sourced WP article; it clearly fails WP:RS, and includes spurious user reviews of releases (which are obviously not included in WP links) and a database hosted by a glorified webzine; we ignore it in the same way we do Chroniclesof Chaos, Metalstorm and other webzines tha have not had their content published by third-party sources (as have, say, Allmusic or MusicMight... although MM is now user-edited, so only edits prior to that change are valid, or changes by the site's editor, Garry Sharpe-Young aka Taniwha). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I undid your edit of replacing the picture. This is only to prevent edit wars and to ease any drama that may come. Just take a look at Lolicon and Futanari as there has been edit wars over disputes about a change or removal of a picture. So it is probably best if you propose a replacement of that picture first and see if their is a consensus. wiooiw (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I hope you won't mind, I have moved your " {{requestedit}}" over here, to your own talk page. It's not really an 'edit request' - those are for people with a conflict of interest, or people unable to edit articles for some other reason. This is more of a help request, and those are best dealt with on your own talk page. So...
There's numerous problems with this article. A big problem seems to be that most contributors seem to have a biased either towards Rozz Williams or Valor Kand. The other big problem is that practically none of this article is cited, and if you look at the references, they're not legitimate sources. Too much of this article is heresay. I think this article needs somebody neutral to come in and clean it up...I've tried, and I don't know what to keep and what to throw out, and most of the edits I've made in the past ended up being reverted. rzrscm (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed a huge chunk of unreferenced information from the article, as I noted it had been tagged as such since 2008. Per the verifiability policy, it should not be added back without appropriate references; and references such as Sage attests to this are, of course, entirely inappropriate (RS).
- As you have apparently had trouble with people reverting, please do remember that there is a need to discuss and obtain consensus. Reading WP:BRD might help; but, also, WP:BURDEN means that anyone who adds back that unreferenced stuff has to supply a reference. And that users adding unreferenced material can be appropriately warned and ultimately blocked from editing; we would start with {{Uw-unsourced1}} and work from there.
- If, however, there is disagreement about referenced material, it will be necessary to start a discussion about a specific edit on the talk page and ask the person who reverted in to explain, and look for consensus. If we can't agree, there are lots of options such as getting a third opinion or whatever.
- Very important to remember a) there is no deadline, and b) the need to remain calm!
- You might also want to raise your concerns on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard.
Regarding the unreferenced material that I removed, I will try to check back on the talk page, and see what happens. Best, Chzz ► 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Dean-tv4.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dean-tv4.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Devilman
[edit]I know you like Devilman, so you should want to participate at this discussion. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)