User talk:Justinfr/archive2

AfD

Apologies. It went through two different AfDs. One was speedy, the other was summarily deleted. Thought it qualified. However, it's still been removed twice and now it's got two different pages with the same information that still fails WP:N. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the multiple articles. These guys might be notable (if referenced), but I don't really care for how the editor is going about creating the articles. Cheers.... justinfr (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Exclusive

J.R. Exclusive is a music producer who produced songs for artist on major labels (Lil Wayne, Freekey Zekey, SoSa, Lil Boosie). He does not have that musch information on him circulating on the internet. You cannot accurately source his information because of that. This is the second time that on of the moderator has deleted his page. I would like for his information to be put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat937boi (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP is not for original research. Until his notability can be established through reliable, third-party sources (see guidelines at WP:MUSIC) the article will likely continue to be deleted. justinfr (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Right -- mixtape artists aren't generally considered notable, and the only sources in the article (even after improvement) were the artist's own page and a "DIY stardom" site where artists post their own profiles. And no problem on the Chiacig stuff. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

J.R. is not just a mixtape producer. "Beat Without Bass" didnt make Freekey Zekey's (From Diplomat/Asylum Records) because of clearing the rights from Lil Wayne to be on the track. Since it was not on the album it was put on the mixtape instead. If you type in "Beat Without Bass" on Google you will get 12.5 million listing. "Beat Without Bass was the number 2 played song on satellite radio for 2 months in a row in 2007. If you need more notability I have a interview with a Canadian magazine called Champ Magazine and it is on youtube (5:33 sec snippet interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjNjZaczAw). Champ Magazine also has a website. He was the producer of the month for the magazine sometime in the fall of 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat937boi (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to recreate the article with those references included. Before you do, please read the notability guidelines for musicians and bands to ensure he qualifies. Other editors can only judge the article's notability based on what is in the article; if he's really more notable, then please include references from verifiable sources. As NawlinWiki said, the artist's own website--or anything generated by him--is not considered a reliable source. The magazine interview might be. Best of luck... justinfr (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will try again. --Dat937boi (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with this?:

(Remove copy of article...) --Dat937boi (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the notability guidelines for musicians? The article's subject needs to be covered by independent sources that are reliable. Websites associated with the article's subject do not count. Once he's been written about in a magazine or newspaper (e.g., The Source) then he's notable. If you feel that the article does meet these guidelines--and I think it does not--you can argue your decision with NawlinWiki (talk), the admin who most recently deleted the page. justinfr (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the notability guidelines for musicians. Under number 9 "Beat Without Bass" or "B Wit Out Bass" due to how it was written has been played on satellite radio. Does satellite radio count as major? It is broad casted around the world. He has won producer of the month by a Canadian magazine which counts as international. One of the verifiable sources that were mentioned was allmusic.com. "Beat Without Bass" under the cd titled "Blame It On The Henny" was on there. "Hustler of the Year" another J.R. Exclusive production was on there also. --Dat937boi (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think satellite radio is notable, but more for Freekey Zekey. On WP, notability is not inherited. That means J.R. Exclusive must be notable in his own right, not just through his association with others. Otherwise, it may be more appropriate to mention J.R. in the Freekey Zekey article, rather than having a separate article about him. Again, I'd mention that WP editors can only go by what's cited in the article, and I don't see a link to champ magazine or allmusic.com. All material must be verifiable.

Maybe here's the most important point: decisions on wikipedia are made by consensus. Editors post articles and other people edit them until there's some kind of agreement on what's appropriate. Sometimes this means articles get deleted. I can try to give you advice, but I'm not the arbiter of wikipedia's "rules." The notability guidelines reflect common beliefs, and so it's the wider community that decides what meets them, and it's them who have to be satisfied. On the one hand, editors are told be bold--and if you think the article has improved to show that it's subject is notable, feel free to re-create the article and argue your case. On the other hand, if the repeated consensus among editors is that J.R. Exclusive isn't notable, it might be best to wait until he's accomplished more before recreating. justinfr (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you are saying. J.R. Exclusive produced the "Beat Without Bass" track. Since there is not information stating that J.R. Exclusive is the producer of the track there is only one way to find out. Here is the record company information and they can tell you who produced the track.

Diplomat

53 W. 36th St # 203

New York, NY 10018-7651

phone: 212-239-3970 | fax: 212-239-6062

Cam'ron (Owner)212-239-3970

Duke Da God (A&R)212-239-3970

Big Joe (Manager)212-239-3970

Until then I will post when new information is available about J.R. Exclusive. Thanks for the help. --Dat937boi (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Beneva Corporation

I do not understand why my article is being labeled as spam. I have tried with all the facts, basic facts and then the last note was that there wasn't enough information aobut the company, so I added more. This is my first article and I keep trying to do it properly as I would like to add most the major national companies located in South West Florida in wikipedia and I'm trying to get the first one right. Any help or suggestion would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveOMac (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding--the process can be a bit rocky for a new editor. There are some guidelines at WP:COMPANY about whether companies fulfil the notability requirements. Second, an important thing is to include some third-party sources that are verifiable. If you create an article about an important company that has been covered in major media, for example, then it would be more likely to stay. Here are some general guidelines on writing a great article. justinfr (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, I know there are some news feeds and articles I cna link to. DaveOMac (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear, good luck. justinfr (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

I just posted the same thing to another user who asked me the same question, and the only answer is that twinkle doesn't have an option to mark for speedy deletion, which is what I use for all of these tasks. All the best, Citedcover (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello and thank you for the links you provided. I hope I will soon better understand how to use wikipedia.Persons0 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It can be a bit overwhelming starting out as an editor, but I'm glad you decided to contribute. I was probably a bit hasty in tagging College Woodwork, if it's over a century old, so I apologize and hope you can expand it into a great article! justinfr (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Investment technology news

I'm trying to add an article. I have two issues: 1. I have not yet gotten to add the citations, but I've marked as such that I'm working on it. My article has already been deleted once and you keep adding flags to my article for deletion. If it wasn't being deleted, I could have finished the citaitons/references already. Any suggestions?

2. I named my article Investment Technology Group, yet it keeps being changed to Investment Technology News. How can I change it back?

1. The article hasn't actually been deleted. Sorry, the WP delete process can be a bit confusing. I suggested that it should be deleted with the {{prod}} tag because it seemed to be spam or advertising. Since you disagree with me, you did the right thing in removing that tag. I then requested a more substantial review of the article through the articles for deletion process. This allows editors to comment on whether an article should be deleted on this page. Feel free to contribute there too.

2. I'm not sure why that happened. You can click on the 'move' tag at the top of the page to fix that. Instructions can be found here.

• justinfr (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Zasz (band)

I just started Zasz (band) and wakeup.feelsomething so give me at least a few minutes to create them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewiththefunk (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why you should use the {{hangon}} tag. As the articles' creator, please don't remove the speedy deletion tag. Also, please read WP:BAND and WP:COI to make sure your article establishes the band's notability. Without that, it will continue to be tagged and deleted. justinfr (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

how do i even undelete it? man im trying to make a page and u delete it within 10 minutes, if they previous concerns are no long an issue why was it deleted? restore it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewiththefunk (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You will have to talk to Orangemike, the administrator who deleted the page. I just recommended it be deleted, he did the actual deleting. Before you recreate, I please read WP:MUSIC and ensure that your band meets those requirements. justinfr (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

before whoever deleted it i posted other media's reviews and coverage of the shows (including an ondemand broadcast on the 21st)

hey u deleted my message! how do i get that article back, they'res a list of album reviews and a on demand show that qualifies this article! oh nvm u just moved it up

As I said, you need to talk to Orangemike, the administrator who deleted it. If you've included verifiable, third-party sources and satisfy the notability requirements then you might have a case. justinfr (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Flatlander (band)

This article meets all requirements and criterion and as such should not be deleted. Please cite any violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickeymcc (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt Eason addressed that issue on your talk page. It's not a question of 'violations'; the onus is on you, the author, to show why the band is notable, as per WP:MUSIC. Of this list, which criteria does the band satisfy? In my opinion, the article, as it was written, lacks reliable sources to establish notability. For example, the other article you created, The Powder Kegs, has some claims of notability because the band won a competition, which might satisfy criteria #9 on the list for bands. (I did, however, remove all the peacock language. justinfr (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show why an article does not comply. I will gladly fix the article, then. The article itself articulates clearly the notability of Flatlander. Just interview anyone familiar with the Burlington Vermont music scene. I did not author the Powder Kegs posting, but rather merely edited it. Flatlander is notable. Flatlander "has won or placed in a major music competition" (Camp Rocks compilation). Flatlander "[h]as become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city." Flatlander "[c]ontains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Flatlander "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" (Seven Days news magazine, Radiator radio station). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickeymcc (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right--my mistake--I should have said 'edited' rather than 'authored'. If you feel the deletion of Flatlander was in error and that the article fulfils the criteria you mentioned, feel free to be bold and recreate the article. But please keep in mind that other editors can only go by what's in the article and what is reliably sourced. Those items you mentioned need to be included and referenced because few of us will be 'familiar with the Burlington Vermont music scene' and so articles must be verifiable through third-party, independent sources.

Lastly, I should point out that I'm not the person who decides on what articles should or should not be included. Decisions on wikipedia are made by consensus. I happened to nominate it for deletion once because I didn't think it fulfilled the notability requirements. On this point, you may also find the article Why Was My Page Deleted? helpful. But indeed--it is the editor's responsibility to show why the article's subject is notable, not that of other editors to show why it's not. justinfr (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just what is this alleged "consensus" upon which you rely? It is the consensus in the community here (to which I am certain that you do not belong) that this group merits exposure and meets any notability requirements. The deletions of the articles are arbitrary and unfounded in light of articles which are permitted on Wikipedia. Go look up some small, lesser-known bands and you will see exactly what I mean; there is a double-standard. The only "disruptions" which are occurring are those connected to the removals of the article and utilization of bastardized rules to justify the same. Each time the article has been posted, it contained changes and edits. I request a formal review in light of the fact that the articles meet the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickeymcc (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia, consensus refers to the community of wikipedia editors, including you. The standard for inclusion in wikipeida is verifiability in reliable sources. These haven't been added to the article and we can't just take your word for it, which has been noted repeatedly. Finally, there was indeed a deletion discussion, linked from the Flatlander article, and located here, where the result was a vote to delete. If you feel this was in error, you can appeal at the deletion review page. justinfr (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit to add: Provide examples of "lesser-known bands" and I'd be happy to review those pages too. There's no double standard--if they're not notable, I'll likely nominate them for deletion too. justinfr (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Who voted on it and why didn't I get a chance to vote? I feel vehemently that this article is significant to musicology. More citations are intended to be added in the future, but for now, just chill out and allow the article to evolve. That is what this is all about, democracy, not dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickeymcc (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the pages I linked to? Each person who voted, and their comments, is listed quite clearly. If you have real citations, add them! I think I've been quite clear about this. In the meantime, statments intended to disparage other editors (such as this) and actions intended to circumvent the actions of administrators (e.g., creating Flatlander (musical group)) are definitely disruptive. Continually doing that will result in you being blocked from editing. justinfr (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dickeymcc was clearly aware that a deletion discussion existed, as evidenced by his (malformed and insufficient) !vote after the AfD was closed by Cunard. Please keep me updated on the situation if the problems continue after the block expires. Feel free to reply here; no need for a talkback template on my page. Tan ǀ 39 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued attention on this. justinfr (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Getmyhomesvalue.com

So, now that you have updated this page, can the tag for deletion be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.135.242 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to wait until the afd discussion is resolved. Other editors might still disagree, though I think now they won't. P.S. - Are you JonathanBentz and just forgot to login? justinfr (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shoulda (Drew Seeley song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I purposefully stopped after three reverts, to avoid violating that rule, and asked the other editor several times to explain his edits, which he did not. After being ignored, I reported it on the noticeboard. Was there something I should have done differently? Just so I know, for the future.... justinfr (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're fine. I counted 4, but I'm not splitting hairs. The only exception to 3RR is for vandalism, which this wasn't. Frankly, I think it's the easiest rule in Wikipedia for a well-intentioned editor to run afoul of. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I had thought the first was an edit, not a revert, but no need to quibble. Thanks for the feedback.... justinfr (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also felt a little ridiculous reporting this over whether it should be a stub or a redirect, but oh well. :) justinfr (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not THE Emmy

Hi, I was going to submit this at the AfD on Claude Genest but, as it has been closed I'm bringing it here. I don't believe the "Emmy" nom is actually for THE Emmy persay and can't find any reliable sources so far to say otherwise. Just a heads up. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you're right. My brain must really be off today. It's the New England Chapter of the Emmys! Thanks. Maybe I'll let somebody else nominate the article if they want--I've made enough mistakes for today :) justinfr (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel. The "chapter" thing threw me off a bit which is why I went vigourously searching for something other than the PDF document without success. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe satisfying 1/3 of WP:POLITICIAN, 1/3 of WP:ACTOR, and 1/3 of WP:PROF adds up to full notability... justinfr (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops!

• Thanks ^.^ JuJube (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Troyrodriguez361

You're welcome. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit confused

Why exactly do you consider the Herpaflor Wikipedia page spam? Valtrex has a Wikipedia page. The only difference between the Valtrex page and the Herpaflor page is that Valtrex is a pharmaceutical product and Herpaflor is a nutraceutical one--and the fact that there's actually a LINK to Valtrex on their Wikipedia page. The information provided on the Herpaflor Wikipedia page is in the same format as the information provided on the Valtrex page and does not offer anything but a true definition/explanation of what the product is. I fail to see how defining the nature of a product counts as spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Morris624 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a bit confused about why you're asking me--I haven't been involved in this discussion at all. Maybe you meant to post this on another user's page? I would encourage you to make comments on the page's articles for deletion discussion. That's where they're discussing whether to delete Herpaflor. I'll take a look at the issue and make a vote there. justinfr (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion pages

Hi Justin - I just want to discuss the Wikipedia processes here and not in public on my pending deletion page. Do you all at Wiki believe people with vested interests in their company or Wiki page do NOT write or edit the information??

Surely people close to the Wiki page article are the ones who write it, in most cases, particularly for companies.

Regarding self generation, virtually all press articles are released by or suggested by the company featured in the article.

Also, the "reference" link on some pages does NOT verify the content of the article. It only refers to sources for some of the ideas presented.

So while you have guidelines, please know that very clever people have ways of making things appear accurate according to Wiki's formats. But they are no more "verified" as being accurate claims than some presentations with less information.

Thanks, Billdhall (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Most of your questions are addressed at the link I included, Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. In brief, yes, people with a vested interest in a company usually have a conflict of interest and shouldn't edit their own articles, except in very specific instances outlined on the FAQ page. This is to maintain a neutral point of view. Press releases are not reliable sources to establish notability, but may sometimes be used as a source for descriptive information. All information included in Wikipedia must be verifiable.

I realize that sometimes people game the system to make their article look notable when it is not. Articles that do this should be deleted--and generally are once they're noticed. See WP:WAX for a discussion of this. justinfr (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Justin, Bill Hall, Music For Children here again.

I'd just like to point out that on Music Together's page, you mention peer reviewed refernces.

As I look at their article, I see nothing there as a verifying reference. The first "peer-reviewed journal article" is written by one of the co-founders, Levinowitz and the second is only a reference to some of the philosophy adopted by Guilmartin and Levinowitz. Neither verify anything. Their existence is verified by the fact that they have locations with classes as our organization does, though agreeably far fewer in number (they are perhaps better marketers than educators).

So it appears that Music Together's as well as Kindermusik International's articles are primarily marketing tools for their programs.

Doesn't seem fair that our program, which was in existence long before either of those two programs, should be denied a fair description of it's content and program - which have been noted by people who've been to both as far superior to either.

But, I understand your organizations struggle to be bound by rules, so I will try to get a person with "no conflict of interest" to issue an article that passes all your criteria.

In the meantime, keep up your good marketing for those who've been lucky enough to qualify.

Yours, Billdhall (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the continued exchange; it's been very helpful. Based on your note, I'll do the following: (1) Take a closer look at their webpages to see if they also warrant scrutiny. (2) Take a look through google and see if I can find some other sources for Music Together. In the meantime, if you have some regular media coverage of your company (e.g., newspapers, magazines), feel free to post it here or on the article's talk page so people can work that into the article. Companies are certainly more notable if they've received significant coverage in independent sources. justinfr (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Justin, me again - I just came across this article on widipedia.

The Paul Green School of Rock Music

Doesn't seem to be much more than a marketing vehicle either.

Check it out - Just doing my "do diligence" on Wiki's policies :)

Billdhall (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops - guess I meant "due diligence" and wiKipedia.

Ciao, Billdhall (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lokesh Dhakal

My proposal was based on lack of any references in the created page -- Thanks for catching that, I'll be more careful in the futureEditor437 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

James Humphreys (lawyer)

Point taken, I have rewritten article, trust it is ok now. familytree101 (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. justinfr (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Micky 1234567890123

I would like to ask you the reason why you deleted my 'Bin Weevils' article. You said it was blatant advertising, however Club Penguin and Adventure Rock fall under the same category (Online Virtual World), and no-one has mentioned anything about deleting them. If you would like to inform me, please visit my talk page. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting the Insomina page to the Insomnia page. I did actually know how it was spelt, it was just a bit of too fast typing. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. justinfr (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions, it seems there is a lot of history about Bin Weevils I was unfamiliar with. Oh, and remember, type slowly! (laughs)! Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. justinfr (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I didn't realise that it was frowned upon. It will never happen again! (Like I said, I am a novice) (laughs). I deleted the section because the Clarence Charles article was deleted. Maybe I should make an archive starting September. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, no problem. You're free to do what you like with your own talk page--sometimes people archive things when the page gets too long, other people just delete old messages. justinfr (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

nokVault

I'm a nokVault user, and I added an additional paragraph to the opening section describing the application's unique on-the-fly encryption/decryption capabilities, and a brief Operation overview section. I hope this helps address the concerns noted previously. --- Dsjonz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsjonz (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for improving the article. In addition, however, information needs to be verifiable. That is, it would be nice if the software's advantages were covered in an independent source like Wired or the like. We can't just rely on the company's own material (see WP:NOR, WP:RS). justinfr (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Charles

It's Micky 1234567890123 again. Please view the Clarence Charles article I have created, is this article okay? Is there anything I need to change? Can you give me advice on how to make this article better? Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Micky. Writing about fictional characters is a bit out of my expertise. There's a long article at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article#Character_article_structure that you might want to check out. It gives guidelines for writing about TV characters and the people at WP:WikiProject_Television will know a lot more about that than I do.

I see, however, that somebody else has already tagged the article for speedy deletion, so you might want to add the {{hangon}} tag below the notice so you have time to make improvements to the article. justinfr (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Micky's Page Moving

I honestly do apologize for my rapid page moving. I will stop this immediately! :) Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you can't create page and call them your new user page. Your user page can only be the account you created, Micky 1234567890123, not User:Micky and not Mickypedia. Please let me know if you'd like me to fix all of this, otherwise you'll find all your new pages will be deleted because they're in the encyclopedia, not in the "user page" section. justinfr (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right! Now I understand what you mean. So if you don't have User: or User talk: before an article name, it will be part of the main Wikipedia right? Thanks for letting me know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micky 1234567890123 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, can you please change Mickypedia back to User:Micky 1234567890123. And can you please change User Talk - Micky back to User talk:Micky 1234567890123

Sorry for all the trouble I caused!

Okay, I'll try to move things back. It's okay, everybody is new at one point or another and the wikipedia interface can be confusing at times. justinfr (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right, if it doesn't have User in front of it, it's the main part of wikipedia. There are some guidelines at WP:USER if you're interested. They tell you what you can all do with your userpage. justinfr (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for moving the pages back! If it wasn't for you pointing out my novice mistakes, I would still be in the starting blocks for my articles! If I need help, I'm definitely coming to you for it because I know you are reliable. If you ever need me to review an article you create, just let me know. I'll let you know what is good, and what could be improved on (based on your expertise, I should think there would be nothing that could be improved on!). Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for working together on fixing things. It was an easy mistake to make and I think things are put back. Cheers... justinfr (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help! Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Million Dollar Baby Society

The article about this society is just providing information on these group of individuals similar to the Billionaire Boys Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbsociety (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Individuals must meet wikipedia's notability requirements and information must be verifiable. Please read those guidelines and ensure your article meets them. Also, if you're personally involved with this group please read WP:COI. justinfr (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By verifiable, I mean that if they have been in magazines you should provide links and references, not just to myspace. Myspace isn't a reliable source. justinfr (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no conflict of interest everything stated in the article are direct quotes and provable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbsociety (talk • contribs) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Remove full copy of proposed article.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbsociety (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Myspace and blogs are not reliable sources for information. justinfr (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If i remove the myspace links will it be an approved article as wells as the two magazine links that were placed onto the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbsociety (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any magazine links, only links to blogs. The bigger problem is notability. That is, whether it's appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your article also isn't clear about what the Million Dollar Baby society is. A company? A club? In my opinion, it doesn't appear to be notable. Please re-read the notability guidelines and make sure you meet them before reintroducing the article. Non-notable articles will likely continue to be tagged for deletion (if not by me, then by other wikipedians). justinfr (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Abduction phenomenon entities

Why did you nominate that article for deletion? Abyssal (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that it was coming from a previously existing article and--since a bunch of the references didn't work--I thought it was a hoax. The prod is already removed but I wasn't sure where to leave you a talk message. My apologies. justinfr (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Steak and cheese

Thanks. Yes, I guess I should be more careful. Chamal ^Talk 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for nothing, pal. Randomgong (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about me making Wikipedia contributions anymore. It's not worth my time to squabble with people such as yourself. Congratulations, your parents are proud. Randomgong (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. But as I said, articles must be verifiable, notable, and reported in reliable sources. It's an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promoting bands. justinfr (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks

:) Exploding Boy (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi...

[1] Exploding Boy (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Randomgong

Hey it's me. Check out my talk page. Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey What Happened?

Question: Where did your user page go??? Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Irvine Young Concert Artists

I'm making this wiki for the director. What do I need to do?

Thanks for explaining, and then I realize that you're in a tough spot if you've been asked to make this for somebody else. There are a few problems with the article as written. First, as I mentioned, it's a copyright issue. But since you seem to be affiliated with the organization (i.e., you probably wrote and thus own the text) there are ways around it. These are the instructions:

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

However, this leads to another problem. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote your group--it can only report on groups that are already notable and verifiable. Therefore, I'd encourage you to read the guidelines about what makes a notable group at WP:N and also read WP:COI, which addresses conflicts of interest, and especially Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Creating articles about groups where you have personal involvement is strongly discouraged, because it makes it hard to maintain a neutral point of view. It might be worthwhile to have your director read the Business FAQ I linked, if he's insistent on having a WP article.

I hope that helps. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fighter X

I believe Fighter X falls in criteria #7 under "musicians and ensembles" in WP:Music. "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" As far as I see, Fighter X is the most prominent representative of breakcore, and probably of chiptunes in the greater Seattle area. If I've interpreted this wrongly however, it would be reasonable to delete that article as per policy. Shadowthief0 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If they are, then that's probably a good reason to include them. Please feel free to leave comments at their deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighter X However--all information must be verifiable in reliable sources, which means there needs to be references to coverage in independent, third-party media. If you have access to those, feel free to add the references to the article and make a comment to that effect at the deletion discussion. justinfr (talk/contribs) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)