User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents

Users JamesBurns, MegX, et. al.

I suspect user User:JamesBurns, AKA User:MegX, has returned as User:Trevvvy and probably User:Cradleofrock. Please see my comments here User talk:Aervanath#Another sock of User:Piriczki for a detailed account of my suspicions. Piriczki (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know. It appears that those accounts have now been blocked. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking care of the MegX legion of one. I had so many problems with that user. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been observing a great deal of sockpuppet activity in rock music related articles lately and this anonymous edit [1] by Special:Contributions/124.186.246.195 caught my eye. It is unusual in that it undid a minor edit of yours from two years ago. User:124.186.246.195 curiously also made this edit [2] to a seemingly unrelated article which caused some disruption and conflict with User:Bkonrad. If you recall, both you and Bkonrad participated in the Talk:Presence (album) move discussion which was the undoing of a long time sockpuppeteer when he unwittingly replied to another editor using the wrong sockpuppet. User:124.186.246.195 appears to be related to these IP addresses: Special:Contributions/123.211.70.91, Special:Contributions/123.211.141.151, Special:Contributions/124.179.170.87, Special:Contributions/124.179.173.61 as well as blocked users JohnLonnnnnn and CosmicLegg and his sockpuppets. Of far more concern are a number of other users whose edits are very similar but I don't know if it's kosher to openly name them here. This seems all too complicated for me and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'd actually prefer not to get involved but this sockpuppetry is so extensive I feel I should say something. Any advice? Piriczki (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the connection between 124.186.246.195 and the longtime sock puppeteer. For one thing, the articles of interest appear different. As for the other ones, if you believe these are new incarnations of CosmicLegg, you could file a new report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicLegg. I should say that despite my involvement with one sock investigation, I'm not of one the more experienced administrators when it comes to dealing with sock puppets, so someone who watches WP:SPI would likely be in a better position to help you out. Sorry I don't have better advice than that. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-charting U.S. music artists

 Done; restored and relisted. Thanks for the note. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for spotting and fixing my error in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Knight in the Congo. I must have been zoning out when I closed that one. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Excellent work saving Alun Woodward from deletion. Fences&Windows 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CSD on Bleum

The page was recreated after you deleted it yesterday, I'm not sure if it's a rework of the previous article or not so I thought I'd give you a heads up. -Falcon8765 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing it to my attention. The new article is about the same subject, but is significantly improved. I don't think it meets CSD criteria as it stands now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

k sorry man

sorry .. i will try the sandbox out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.246.221 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope if you stick around you'll try out some constructive edits as well. Regards, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Whiz Kids (Book)

Hello Paul Erik, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Whiz Kids (Book) has been removed. It was removed by 41.206.51.82 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 41.206.51.82 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Newsday

You mentioned in the DiMeco AFD that you found a source; do you have access to that source? It isn't in Lexis, so far as I can find, and it's a regional source that's quite far beyond my region.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed. I will add it to the article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Madan Kataria page

Hi

Earlier we had posted the profile of Dr. Madan Kataria which was copied from www.laughteryoga.org and it was removed because of copyright infringement.

We are the owner of that site and now we have removed the copyright line. Infact anyone copy and spread the message of laughter.

Can we copy the text from the site again??? Or should we write new one??

Pramod Laughter Yoga Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pksahu007 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a new article could be created, although I would encourage you cite sources that are independent—there appears to be a significant number of news articles mentioning him that could be used as sources to help to establish notability. Please keep in mind our guidelines regarding conflict of interest however. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vacuity (band) more sources

Hello. If you need any more third-party coverage from reliable sources to meet the requirements for the Vacuity (band) article I have two more articles that discuss the free distribution and cross Canada tour.

http://www.toromagazine.com/?q=node/1344

http://uniter.ca/view/715/

Many apologies if this is not the place to post this. I love and respect Wikipedia, but have little understanding of the contributing end.

Thank you.

Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.101.105 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have added those sources to the article. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Paul,

I can get you scans/links of more articles - will this help prove notability for the Vacuity (band) article?

Thanks,

Randall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.70.5 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Randall. It would depend on the nature of the publications, but yes, in general the more independent sources that are cited in an article, the more likely it would be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so if you have more sources please let me know. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Again Paul,

Sorry for the delay. Here are some more articles:

http://news.therecord.com/article/325220

http://echoweekly.com/viewstory.php?storyid=7177

http://www.411mania.com/music/album_reviews/737/Vacuity-%E2%80%93-The-Middle-Ground-Review.htm

http://www.fazermagazine.com/new/viewPost.php?id=651

a great review of their set at NXNE - definitely notable:

http://www.chartattack.com/reviews/50839/vacuity-horseshoe-tavern

also, a feature (a bit dated) in Canadian Musician Magazine:

http://canadianmusician.com/showcase/index.php/2004/05/08/vacuity-mayjune-2004/

I would say there is little question as to this band meeting notability, but that is just me.

Thanks again,

RF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.93.152 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RF, for offering some more sources. I have started, but will have a chance later in the week to incorporate more of them into the article. We then ought to be able to remove the {{notability}} tag. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Paul,

Your help and expertise are much appreciated. Thanks for everything.

Randal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.70 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reaction, but I have now added some more sources and removed the {{notability}} tag. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: 30H!3

Paul,
Many thanks for reporting the error DarknessBot made with the redirect in the above article last month - just to let you know I've now squashed the bug which caused this and he should no longer get confused when he stumbles across a page at a time it and its redirects are being moved around. ShakingSpirittalk 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO2.0 China Project

Hi Paul Erik,

You deleted the article "NGO 2.0 China Project" because ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://web.mit.edu/chinapolicy/www/aboutpost2009.html). I am Jing Wang, a professor at MIT, and the founder of china Policy Studies China at MIT, and it was I who renamed that research unit into a different name "MIT new media action lab." Please read my MIT page -- http://web.mit.edu/fll/www/people/JingWang.shtml and the following --

"Professor Jing Wang received her Ph. D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She taught at Duke University for sixteen years before joining the MIT FL&L faculty. She is the founder and organizer of New Media Action Lab (NMAL) – previously known as the MIT International Initiative of Critical Policy Studies of China."

The old site address "MIT Critical Policy Studies of China" was redirected to my new website http://web.mit.edu/newmediaactionlab/

Please check the two sites - they are the same site.

Please restore the article - so many grassroots NGOs in China contributed to it. It exasperated lots of people that you deleted it because of the misunderstanding above.

Thanks, Jing Wang (jing@mit.edu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitjingwang (talkcontribs) 03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jing Wang. Yes, I deleted that version of the article because it appeared to have been copy-pasted from http://web.mit.edu/chinapolicy/www/aboutpost2009.html which has the same content as http://web.mit.edu/newmediaactionlab/www/aboutpost2009.html. Please understand that Wikipedia must be very careful about copyrights. The website's licensing says that material may be used elsewhere, with attribution, only if it is not used for profit ("You may not use this work for commercial purposes"). That licensing is not compatible with Wikipedia's, where content is allowed to be redistributed by others for profit. A new article could be written, if the organization has had significant coverage in third-party sources, but would need to adhere to other policies as well, as the other deleting admin wrote to you here. Please do let one of us know if you have other questions. Regards, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendofan5000 and his multiple accounts

Thank you for keeping a lookout for this vandal. I assume you were watching the Adult article and waiting for him to strike again? Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I was just doing a little "recent changes" patrol when I came across the edits to Adult. But then I took a look at the page history and did some investigating. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I thank you again anyway. It seems that he was going to start alternating between his accounts that still worked. I assumed you were watching out for this vandal in some way due to how fast you got to the vandalism and the subsequent blocks you issued to his other accounts. I have no doubt that he will make another account eventually, but I suppose all we can do is keeping blocking him. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Stay alert! :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I'll do my best (whatever that is these days, considering that I am not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be; the very recent days have been the exception). Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
He struck again, this time as ICTMan. Not even long after this discussion. Am I going to have to file a bigger case against this guy or what? Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You could, but I think that RBI might be okay for a situation like this. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will take your advice. It's just that I have been doing that over and over again now, and was wondering what else I could do that might be more effective (as in last longer). But at least he is only attacking one article to make this belief of his a "fact." Before, he would target other articles as well. Really, I believe he is currently a 16-year-old (or even a 17-year-old) kid having some fun, but that type of fun should not be had at Wikipedia (of course). I appreciate your help on this matter, and I promise that I won't bug you every time he strikes again (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :) A CheckUser might be able to block the underlying IP address (if it's a static address), but I think that would be overkill. Meanwhile I'll add Adult to my watchlist too. Thanks – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know CheckUser would be able to block the IP for a long time, but that would be overkill (as you said), seeing as the vandal does not typically edit as an IP and certainly not in an aggressive manner; plus, it might affect other people wanting to edit Wikipedia. And, again, I appreciate the help. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Forsyth

hi
please can u unlock my page its Jamie_Forsyth or Jamie Forsyth with ever way u look @ it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-forsyth (talkcontribs) 15:42, 20 September 2009

It was another admin, Acroterion, who locked it against recreation. It appears to be because you are repeatedly recreating pages that do not adhere to Wikipedia policies. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for NPWatcher

User:Declan Davis

Hello there. I made a recent request for access to NPWatcher, but don't seem to have had a reply. The page says "If you don't get a timely response, feel free to nag an administrator" so that's just what I'm doing. I hope you don't mind! I'm a rollbacker and have been using Huggle and Twinkle. I've been trying to use Twinkle to tag inappropriate new pages, but everytime I try to tag one it seems that someone has got there first. I feel like I'm going round and round in circles trying to tag them manually. An automated tool, like NPWatcher would help me a lot. Could you please check out my stats and get back to me? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Declan. I haven't reviewed editors for the purposes of NPWatcher before, but I looked over your contribution history. You have been doing some excellent anti-vandalism work. On the NPWatcher checkpage it says "...you should have at least 500 edits and a clear understanding of the policy." You certainly have the suggested edit count, and you might have an understanding of CSD policy, but I don't see a lot of CSD tagging: in your deleted contributions there are only two pages you tagged for speedy. I'm not sure if there is another way to evaulate your understanding of CSD...? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your concerns. In fact, to the letter of the law, you're most correct! My hope was that because I hadn't caused any problems with Rollback, Huggle and Twinkle that you might assume my trustworthiness for using NPW. If I go away for a couple of weeks and make some revisions with Twinkle then would you consider me again? (Please don't let me pressure you, if you want to seek advise from another admin, or just say no!, then don't worry: I would understand). Best wishes ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries at all. If I see you doing some correct CSD tagging I would be very happy to give you the NPWatcher access. Keep up the good work! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jill Taylor

Please add the sources that you found. Someone claimed there were sources in the last afd, but never could be arsed to add them, and if someone doesn't add something, this article will continue to rot in its unsourced, fancrufty state. Sometimes, I think "Nobody cares" should be the new Wikipedia motto. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know; "Somebody Else's Problem". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the image I aded to that essay? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I like it! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"the" Arcade Fire

Hi Paul, I recently boldly went through the Arcade Fire article and inserted a "the" in the band's name (depending on where it fit), per consensus at featured articles Pixies and Sex Pistols (though there is no established consensus yet at Arcade Fire). Since you're interested in Canadian music, would you give your two cents on the matter at Talk:Arcade Fire#Arcade Fire / The Arcade Fire? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting my input. I've responded there. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

chris willis and roll wit it

hi, a user KWW is vandaliszing chris willis page by removing all references of his collaboartion with canadian marc mysterio and the song roll wit it. the song was massive in europe in clubs and sold hundreads of thousands of units on compilations. its part of his discogs and properly referenced.

im in a back and forth with this KWW whom keeps removing it after its been there for months. its also referenced in an interview with marc mysterio on the high profile news blog beatportal run by BEATPORT [1] AND ALSO ON BBC RADIO 1 PLAYLIST [2]

Please help protect this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.78.232 (talkcontribs)

This is the first time that the IP has provided a reliable reference that indicates that Chris Willis had anything at all to do with the work. I'll fix the fact that the IP can't format edits properly now that the information is properly sourced.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
All sorted out, then. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandalism

Hi Paul

I notice that on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you refused a block because the user was last warned last year. I actually went on to the Vandalism page earlier for something else and went into this persons account and noticed that they hadn't been warned since last year. I'm just wondering, if I come across something like this again on Vandalism Intervention page, as a plain editor can I remove that from the page as long as I explain why in the edit summary? I've only ever reverted straightforward vandalism from that page previously. I didn't want to revert it before because I didn't want to tread on any toes (so to speak) but I could also tell right away that it would be refused. --5 albert square (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, as a "plain editor" you are welcome to comment on AIV reports, such as adding a "stale warning" comment. I think that's a little better than removing it outright, but I doubt anyone would fault you for removing the report if you used an informative edit summary. Thanks for your work, 5 albert square. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Paul

Thanks for letting me know that. Do you know where I can find "stale warning" comment templates? I've had a look, can't find any on Wikipedia, unless I'm missing them --5 albert square (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure: when you edit the WP:AIV page, a box should appear at the top, saying "AIV notation templates"—you hit "show" and then can copy them from there. Or you can find them all at {{AIV}}. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So there is! Can't believe I didn't notice that before, must need new glasses! Thanks and take care --5 albert square (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Paul

I'm sorry to trouble you again.

I was looking at the Wikipedia Vandalism Page Protection page before and I noticed that there were quite a lot of people refused page protection because the page hadn't been vandalised enough. For quite a few of the instances, I could've told the person that their request would be refused because of the amount of times the page had been vandalised. As normal editors, are we allowed to edit that page to add say the note template along with something along the lines of "this page has been vandalised twice within the last 24 hours". Are we allowed to do that or is this a page for the admins only?

Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this one I'm less sure about, since I'm less experienced with the culture at WP:RFPP. I'm not aware of any guideline that says that only admins can post a "decline" there. You could try asking at the talk page. Hope you're well, too :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mob Figaz

If you've found sources, might wanna bring them up at the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I didn't notice that it had already been tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, sorry if I seem snippy. Like I said, I don't usually notice if an article has already been tagged, and I think it's silly to remove the tag, say the subject is notable, and then just let it rot in its unsourced, stubby state. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have clarified that. With the "blatant lies" gone, there's nary an assertation of notability. It could've been G3'd just for being misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right about that as well. I really do need to be more careful with the tagging, and I can see how it'd scare away new editors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know what to do. I've tried pacing myself, I've tried short wikibreaks, I've tried everything I can think of, and I'm still way too hasty. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My intent wasn't to use AFD for cleanup; I had indeed found virtually no secondary sources in a good search through Google News. I think that AFD is a good example of the swiss cheese model. (Also, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we let articles rot for two or three years in such deplorable condition. Some parts of Wikipedia just seem like one big "nobody cares".) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 81.153.217.221

Re [3], the only warning was given at 20:40 (UTC), and at that same time, having received the warning, the user vandalized again. --Law Lord (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the warning and the last edit the user made were at 20:40 (UTC). I thought it was possible that the user made the edit, saw the warning, and then stopped editing. Several hours have passed now, and the user has made no other edits. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you deleting me things ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JStarhz (talkcontribs) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

LIGHTS Redirect

I thought that was the standard ruling to not have an all caps name. I should have just redirected LIGHTS to Lights (musician). Sorry for any inconvenience! Thanks! --Russ is the sex (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes – no worries. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the delete.

That was a fast response to that attack page, and I appreciate you deleting it. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks to you for tagging it! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Block for 216.25.247.245

Thanks for blocking 216.25.247.245. If you take a look through my revision history you'll see that the same user is spread across 216.25.247.244, 216.25.247.246 and 216.25.247.247 as well. From comments on the talk pages it seems like this range is given to mobile phone users on a random basis. That might account for some of the weirdness of the edits. This includes stripping out all linefeeds from a section, and typing more text into the edit summary than they ever put into the page they are editing. Also the guy who complained about the unfairness of the warnings (in an edit summary rather than on the talk page), wrote "foot" where he probably meant "dont" - some kind of predictive text thing on a phone keyboard.

I think the action (block/unblock) should be consistent across the address range, as the bad user seems to be able to access all of them. Probably a block would give some relief to the other users as they wouldn't have to read any more warnings. There have been about 60 warnings spread across the four addresses. Anyway, that's what's going on! - Ttwaring (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that careful investigating. Since the previous block was for three months, I've changed the block lengths for all of those anons to six months, as the edit history shows it is indeed the same user. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - looks like they've moved onto 216.25.247.243 now :-( - Ttwaring (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Scotchman 1140

Why do you keep deleting my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotchman1140 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cary Yandle ?!?!

Hey why did you delete that, cary yandle is respected by alot of our friends, he won the jedi olympics. A game that we created so if you would mind not deleting it again, thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.5.125 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim appeared to be a hoax, so it was deleted as "vandalism"; in retrospect it may have been speedy-able under criterion A7 as an article about a person that made no credible claim of significance. Articles about people who win a video game typically do not belong in an encyclopedia, when there are no third-party sources that have written about the person; see Wikipedia:Notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grand Finale (American Idol 8)

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated Grand Finale (American Idol 8), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Finale (American Idol 8) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paul Erik. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello Paul Erik! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2,779 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Mike Smith (saxophonist) - Find sources: "Mike Smith (saxophonist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a redirect; it was not me who wrote the article in question. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A Bird in the House

I see you removed the PROD on the grounds that "has been discussed in multiple sources including The New York Times (April 19, 1970)". Perhaps you would be good enough to add some of those citations to the article, which has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years? Thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mymuddyyj

Hi. I'd like to ask you as the blocking admin to review this activity on User:Mymuddyyj. My understanding that a block (even an indefinite one) is different from a ban, and so the notice is not correct. User:Rasputin72 who placed the notice there is a newly registered account although the editor does appear to be quite familiar with editting on Wikipdia. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that should have been "blocked", not "banned". I've made the correction. Thanks, Whpq. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiseman7000 SPI

Im noticed that you said that you have been blocking this guy is there any possible way that you could list the users that you believe are involed with this guy on the SPI page that way we can so more evidence of this users history with more then one account.--Steam Iron 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, working on it even as we speak. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
ok great thanks.--Steam Iron 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All Star Cashville Prince

Thanks for posting the second AfD discussion; I had no idea it existed. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just doing my part, WikiGnome-style. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

List of martini variations

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paul Erik. You have new messages at Efficacious's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Attachment theory

No problem, I just Ctrl + F'd them and found them again easy. Cheers. :D -WarthogDemon 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Are you interested to be involved in Wikimania? In 2011, we want m:Wikimania 2011 to be in Montréal. Are you interested to be involved? [www.wikimania.qc.ca] --FAIL!Talk 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not me. But I appreciate you stopping by to ask. Merci bien! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

dingo1729

Hi, I noticed you deleted my talk page. Was that because you think I'm a vandal or was there vandalism on the page? I don't really know my way around here yet. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! No, you're not a vandal; an anonymous IP editor had put some vandalism there so I deleted it. May I offer you a {{welcome}} template? :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, Dingo1729 (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex Greggs

Many thanks for your kind note about necessity of adding references to the newly created article on Alex Greggs. I have now done so adding more info as well. Much apprecieted werldwayd (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty Hi Paul Erik/Archive 6, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored, thanks.) Ikip 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"By invitation only"? Hmm, not sure that's the Wikipedia way, really. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and I was naive to say that. Hoping to hear your ideas. Ikip 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ikip. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, we all my mistakes, mine just have stronger consequences :) Ikip 04:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nintendofan5000 Again

Hi again it seems that Nintendofan5000 is up to it again there's a new sock case open. If you have any new accounts that might be his could you pleses list them.--Steam Iron 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. You can find the other socks by looking here. From the comments at the SPI, it doesn't appear there's sufficient evidence to connect this sock farm to that other one. Regards, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I cite on Alex!

I cite my info, the Alex page one was cited. KOF :) 01:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talkcontribs)

With your edit it was not clear to me what reliable source you were attempting to cite, per our verfiability policy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the citing was from a reliable site. Is there a list of reliable sources? KOF :) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no list, because the short answer to the question of "what is a reliable source?" is "it depends." You can find further explanation at WP:SOURCES. What source were you relying upon for your information? You neither cited a source, nor specified anything in the edit summary. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a record of what I cite? It seems like you have a record of everything. KOF :) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a record of all the edits made to any page; see Help:Page history. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And BTW, it was by word of mouth. I can't cite that. KOF :) 13:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

im the guitarist

I've been in the band since we formed in 2003, and was in a previous band for 4 years with our drummer. I don't see what's wrong with changing our biography, That old one was completely outdated. We hired an actual journalist to write this one.


his name is Jared Story, if you needed to know,

Robin

ps please allow this change, i see nothing wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadnaut (talkcontribs) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robin. That text is well written, and I appreciate that it is more up-to-date; however, it is not written in a neutral tone that would be expected of an encyclopedia article, with such phrases as "the band has proven to be one of the most potent hard rock acts to call the ‘Peg home." Also, please understand that Wikipedia is very cautious about copyright violations. Since any text in Wikipedia articles can be freely distributed, including for profit by others, we cannot use copyrighted text; band bios that appear on Facebook and MySpace are invariably copyrighted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please put back the <redacted> Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by K6uhelski (talkcontribs) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An attack article? No. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

BuffaloAndAnglerFireholeRiverYNP.jpg

Paul Erik/Archive 6 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

why

why couldn't you notify me to change the direct context . You wasted my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elplankto1 (talkcontribs) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about notability

Hi there. This article which you recreated has been deleted approximately eight times and apparently now the topic of the article is notable. The only verifiable reference given in the article is one link to The Independent that mentions the topic of the article merely once as a side-remark. The other 3 references are not verifiable for people outside the UK. Your comment as to why this article is now included in Wikipedia will be appreciated. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I really appreciate you asking, rather than putting a {{notability}} tag on the article. The previous deleted versions cited no references at all, gave no indication as to why the subject is significant, and at least one was a copyright violation. I did a bit of research, using my library's database of newspaper articles, and found that in fact there was a fair amount of coverage of this game. There is much more coverage than what is currently cited in the article, but I tried to offer a sampling of some of the articles that addressed the topic beyond just a passing mention. You're right, though, that the only one which is linked has just a brief mention—but I included it because at least it verified the "10 million" number. Moshi Monsters is often mentioned as a prime example of a popular online game for young children, for example by The Sunday Times here and by The New York Times here. But it's a suitable topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia, in my view, because it meets the general notability guide's requirement of nontrivial coverage in independent sources, and does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Your comment that the other 3 references are not verifiable for people outside the UK is not quite true (e.g., I'm not in the UK and I was able to find the references). Sources do not have to be accessible online to be appropriate reliable sources. Please do let me know if I can clarify further. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for the info. Amsaim (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NWS move

When you moved NWS (disambiguation) to NWS and deleted the redirect that had previously been there, you appear to have overlooked the tens of other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "NWS". This included other redirects and templates, most of which have now been fixed, but other links remain. When you change the destination of existing links, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I'm usually better at cleaning up after myself in this regard! Apologies for my lapse. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Your excellent work finding sources for List of fictional television shows is admired and appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Colonel! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Christgau

sorry about the messed up edits for Robert Christgau, his ratings on some of the best albums ever just made me a little mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetgerbil (talkcontribs) 00:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! I see that the culprit is now block. --Chuck369 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

um, of course I meant my talk page --Chuck369 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kent Glowinski

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kent Glowinski. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Glowinski (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

UFC 111

Thank you for protecting it ive been trying to fix vanadlism and was beeing warned by a guy for fixing diaz's name —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLFE0007 (talkcontribs) 04:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your efforts to combat the vandalism. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Biologist Mark

I made an additional comment to you about him on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; replied at your talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Zeus

Thanks for adding the references for the Sounds Like Zeus album. I got all the info from the physical EP and I tried to find info on line for it. Argolin (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. For Canadian music articles, I have found it useful to used Google's "advanced search" feature, where you can limit searches to a specific domain: good ones are "exclaim.ca", "chartattack.com", "eyeweekly.com", "nowtoronto.com", "canoe.ca", "canada.com", "vueweekly.com", "straight.com" (and you can probably think of other Canadian weeklies that would also be useful). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

{talkheader}} + {todo|small=no}}

Will take your advice on the two temples (that being to use sparingly when needed). I will confess that I did little reading on the two templates. However, I did ask User:Moxy for guidance and he didn't have a problem with it. To be fair, I don't believe I told him I was editing the Canadian indie rock groups and basically putting the talkheader everywhere.

Any other comments on my edits? I guess you've seen enough of them? Get back Argolin (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page; feel free to respond over there, to keep the conversation in one place. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Joys

Paul, There is some sort of reference at Talk:The Joys of an OTRS permission to use the work. Personally, I wouldn't call it work but another four letter word. That is why I posted a comment on the talk page and didn't nominate the article for deletion myself. Is the speedy deletion process affected?
Argolin (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed that! One of the few times I have tagged an article without first checking the talk page. Thanks very much for letting me know. All that said, the tone of the text is not quite what we are looking for in a neutral encyclopedia.... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The article offends me. Some fan, or maybe one of the band members, copied and pasted it to Wikipedia with zero attempt to wikify it. It seems like the article is blatent self-promotion or posted by a fanatic. The serious banners warning and informing everyone of the article's non-compliance to Wikipedia's standards have been there for six months. Nothing was done. DELETE DELETE DELETE.
Argolin (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, although we're supposed to re-write it in a neutral tone (various guidelines tell us that deletion is supposed to be a "last resort"), if it turns out the band is notable, and if the article does not meet the WP:G11 speedy criterion... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And there's at least a hint of notability with this article from Chart. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. But I remain steadfast; I am not wikifiying it. I did add the Wiki Project Canada music=yes to the talk page. However, I am not holding my breath for someone else in the Canadian music group to do it. There is too much other work to be done. Can't remember if I told you, but roughly one-third of the articles I come across do not have the WikiProject Canada banner on the talk page, let alone the music=yes parameter.
Later...Argolin (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ron Killings

Lots of IP vandalism. I see your admin, and requested that it be protected -- they're all saying he's died. I've searched google, didn't see anything obvious. Thought you should know --Tommy2010 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Another admin has gone ahead and protected it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Laundronauts

Paul, when you get a minute have a look at The Laundronauts. I cleaned-up the infobox, categories, and opening to say indie rock. Not everything people throw at a wall will stick-if you know what I mean. Anyway, before cutting back the genre listing in the infobox and categories, I wanted to know the creator of the article. See User talk:Jaetoe. Is there some special banner or notice that should be placed on the article? Also, I rated it a C. Your thoughts? Reply here. Later...Argolin (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if the user wrote the article first in his user space before introducing the article to mainspace—nothing the matter with that; lots of editors do that. (I do that, in my second sandbox.) The editor contributed nothing else, so one thinks it may be a single-purpose account. In my mind, though, the editor's credit on this photo is the strongest evidence we have that the editor has a close connection to the band. So it would not be unreasonable to add {{COI}} to the article. Me, I'm not a big fan of tags on articles (I might be in the minority around here on that issue) and generally try to clear up the issue myself rather than adding the tag—in this case, that would mean giving the article the once-over to make sure that NPOV has been carefully adhered to. C-Class or Start-Class I think are all right as an assessment. (I'd probably want to see some of the NPOV and OR addressed before calling it C-Class.) Genres are a tough thing, sometimes. When they're disputed we try our best to go with what reliable sources have said. Did I cover the bases, or was there something else you were thinking of? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No. I thought it was odd that the user page was essentially a mirror. I have not really come across may articles that I've had to rate so high. I'm still trolling around the Category:Canadian indie rock groups dealing with stub or start class. I'm at M's BTW and think I'll take a little break. Thanks for your help.Argolin (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You're doing some good work and deserve a break. I find it's helpful to mix things up a little, try out some different tasks around here; it helps in avoiding burnout. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discography lists

Hi there. With regards to Jive Records discography, there seemed to be a precedent built against these types of pages. Furthermore the creator of these pages has been been loading them with bogus content (i.e. albums that appear to have no connection to the said label). Other successful deletions include: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koch_Entertainment_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sony_BMG_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E1_Music_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jive_Records_discography and included the participation of User:TenPoundHammer. There was also one for Atlantic but I wasn't aware the result or that it might have changed, and I think there may be another older one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_Records_discography. In the entire debate at the time, my biggest problem was with the Sony BMG and E1 Music lists because those companies are parent companies, and in the case of Sony BMG, one of the big four, released (or distributed) roughly up to a 1/4 of the world's music in existence, hence a senseless, terminally incomplete list page would be completely useless. As mentioned, the creator of those pages was also loading them with bogus content and was an uncooperative editor. Judging from the editing style of this new Jive page, I have every reason to believe it's the same user and that the new page still suffer from bogus content, despite the fact that such a list was deemed, at least at one point in time, to be inappropriate. Imperatore (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, and you're right that a trend has developed towards deletion of certain discographies. But it can't be a CSD G4 deletion, because there's never been a deletion discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete that particular article. In fact Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geffen Records discography resulted in the Jive discography being kept. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's not a new Jive page. It was created in 2008, by Mrgreen520 (talk · contribs). Is that the user you are referring to? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
2008 makes sense. I only took care of the situation when I began to notice in the summer of 2009, and I wasn't aware of the final result (I was under the impression it either got redirected or deleted). And yes, MrGreen is the user, as well it's obvious he sockpuppets with other accounts and also edits by IP. Imperatore (talk)
If there is a user who is editing disruptively and using multiple accounts in an attempt to avoid scrutiny of what he's doing, it might be worth opening a sock puppet investigation. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Wemmick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Wemmick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Musical groups from ???

Paul, I have been corresponding with User talk:Moxy regarding my set up of new category pages. I would like your thoughts on the Ontario category page below. Formated ok? The one line sentence ok? Something else to add? I wanted to (within the categories) be able to move to the top level Category:Canadian music down and around. Have a look at Category:Musical groups from Ontario. Please respond here. Thanks. Argolin (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think it looks good, and I like that you've been improving navigability within categories (and in See also sections). I think there might be some issue with creating empty categories (they might get speedy-deleted), although I am not a categorization expert—Bearcat has much more expertise with categories than I do. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul, hope your grammar is good. Is it: Musicians from the Canadian province of Ontario or is the 'p' in province capitalised? I think it's caps. Please advise. Argolin (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, do I need to hyperlink province? I know too many links are bad, but the category article page(s) do not have much in them and should not have much text in them. Thanks again.Argolin (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
In the phrase Canadian province of Ontario, it's a lowercase p, just as you wrote it. I wouldn't wikilink province, as it takes the reader to much too general an article compared to what they are probably looking for as they browse Canadian music categories. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. I'm more or less done the maintenance on the musicians and musical group cat's. Again thanks for the input. Yes, I know there are three or four cats with nothing in them. That is my next task. If I don't find any, I'll ask User talk:Moxy for help and or posting a notice for help on the portal. Later.. Argolin (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul, FYI I have added the template {{empty category}} per WP:CFD#Speedy renaming and speedy merging. This empty category template prevents the speedy deletion for categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. It sounds like the "regular" deletion process can still happen. I posted a note to Moxy informing him of the three empty categories. Cheers... Argolin (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Woods of Ypres

You should consider placing the Keep as the first word. When you place Keep at the end (as you have) it is not quickly noticed, and may be over-looked by another editor who is trying to determine how the vote is going. Just a thought. Cheers! Andy14and16 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I have given it some thought in the past: see the final two comments in the following discussion: User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 5#Nice to see you in AfD again. Face-smile.svg Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the fun in having a "qwerky" style, but I stand by my suggestion, because, in the end, it is a vote (despite the PC that its not). Cheers! Andy14and16 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice on format for a category page

Paul, please see Category:Musical groups from Ottawa. My question, should I use bold and/or italics on the text. In this case the line "Music bands originating from the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." be bold? Should "For individual musicians originating from Ottawa, please see Category:Musicians from Ottawa." be in italics? Vice-versa, neither, does not matter? Thanks, Argolin (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're referring readers to another category or to a Wikipedia article, then the convention is that we use italics; that's for your second example. As for the first, I'm not as sure. In general we're not supposed to overdo it with bolding, so I might leave it in plain text. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Or (for your first question) you could pick a single word to bold, such as "Ottawa"—I think Category:Performing arts provides a good example for formatting. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks pretty good! I'll put some more thought in to it, develop something, and will be back before rolling it out. Argolin (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul please see Category:Musicians from Ottawa. It may be a bit too busy? I don't know about the {{Canada topic|List of musicians from|List of Canadian musicians}}. Maybe that template should only be used at the provincial level? Your comments... Argolin (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good effort, and thanks for being so open to feedback! Yes I think your instincts may be right, that it's a little busy. You're right that the template may be best left just at the provincial level. Also, please be aware of the guidelines around copying within Wikipedia: it's permitted, but it's required by the license that you provide proper attribution, for example with an edit summary referring to the history of where you are copying from. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not perfect and others may have great ideas for stuff to add or formating etc. Why not ask! The layout of this category page will be rolled out to Toronto + Vancouver. Anyway, the template is gone, and I linked the musicians. Do I post a notice on the talk page? I haven't yet followed the link you provided. I doing some other upgrades. Have a peek: Category:Canadian musical groups . I am still working on the musicians side. Argolin (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I like what you did with the musical groups category. By the way, I helped you out with the attribution issue by writing this, so that takes care of it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought wow you're fast. So I just put it in the comments like you did? I finished the other one Category:Canadian musicians. I had to find the stub musicians group. Thanks. Argolin (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when you copy from a Wikipedia article, you need to provide an edit summary like the one I did, which includes a link to the article you've copied from. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Now hey, I wouldn't have known that unless I asked! What did you mean you liked what I did with the musical groups cat? The banner I added? I like the link to the stubs. Argolin (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The banner, and the stubs! Face-smile.svg Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'll post a note to User_talk:Moxy before rolling it out across Canada. Later... Argolin (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with naming Canadian music awards

Paul, I need to impose upon your time. I have asked for the renaming of some categories:

I may have to voluntarily remove some items I have requested. The thing is, I really don't know which way is up anymore. I have read stuff on the naming of items at WP. Some of it is bordering on legaliesse if you know what I mean.

Renaming of winners to recipients is reasonable to me; that's not my issue. It is the other three Juno, MMVA and the ECMA. I am aware there are multiple Juno awards (and others) presented each year. Does that mean I am wrong to request a name change? What if next year the Polaris people start handing out multiple awards. Does the name have to change then? Or the MMVA only hands out one award? I am trying to bring consistency between the parent cats and their children. It seems horrible to have a parent:

and child:

where the first parent cat has awards, but the child does not.

I'm not sure what takes precidence. The article name. Hirearchy naming for the cats. Etc, etc. It's all making my head hurt! lol. Thnaks Argolin (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Argolin, whoa. I'm not an expert in categorization, but my first reaction to this is to ask, have you read and understood Wikipedia:Category names and Wikipedia:Overcategorization? Not wanting to make any quick assumptions, but If not, why are you creating new categories? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
yes reading all that is why my head was hurting. I started to doubt myself afterwards. I thought you knew everything! lol.
Why new cats: to complete the structure under Category:Canadian music. I have set up Category:Canadian rock music, Category:Alberta music, etc. I've been keeping Moxy informed of the new cats I've been creating. Is that your concern? Argolin (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for my unhelpful response earlier. I like to think I know everything so I get taken aback when I discover I don't. Face-smile.svg After you asked me, I went over to the WP:OVERCAT page and the first section I jumped to (WP:OVERCAT#Award recipients) said, "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." So my concern was that you might find that someone quickly nominates the categories for deletion, which can be discouraging after the thought and work you put into it. I see, though, that you did not create all the categories listed above. I don't really have enough experience with categories to know what names are correct or most consistent but it's a good idea to do what you've done and get some input from the editors who hang out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. And, finally, I'm not sure how helpful it is say this, but: You will find many inconsistencies on Wikipedia. Some can be reconciled and some won't be; that's the nature of such a large project with so many different individuals working on it. I've always found categories rather challenging, so I hope you don't get frustrated if you run into some difficulties along the way. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
At first I thought maybe I caught you at a bad time. But your reply was somewhat helpful in that you linked to two relevant WP articles. Have a peek at this conversation I was having with another editor for a truely unhelpful reply User talk:Redheylin#Reverted edit to Category:Canadian styles of music.
I stopped creating the new categories cause I thought I was making inconsistencies worse. Let's get them renamed then move on. But now: maybe not. I will use a different attack method next time round.
You final comment on the inconsistencies. Yup. WP is like a giant Hydra. Where is Hercules when you need him? Thanks for the little pep talk on frustration. I'll do my best not to add to inconsistencies, but it looks like I'll have to live with most of them for now and work around them. Thanks as always. Argolin (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Love on Ice

Hi, may I ask you why you turned down Love on Ice, since they don't seem to have done anything notable? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe they meet criterion #1 of WP:BAND notability guidelines. See my note on the article's talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. I had no idea the standards were so low. Somehow I had the idea that the standards were scholarly and needed substantial mention in reliable sources. I will definitely lower mine to fit with wikipedia's policies from now on. I was operating on a whole other plane! Thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

TFA

Please, Could you move protect the article Tropical Storm Barry (2007), it is Today's Featured Article?. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 02:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! What happened to the bot that used to move-protect TFAs? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't know, It has been down a long time. TbhotchTalk C. 03:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I need help

This editor Mr.Sedge removed a Speedy Deletion Template from Dre (album) that i placed there because the page was holding up a move from Dre (Soulja Boy Tell 'Em album). He cut and pastedvthe info instead whitch I have reverted. Could you speedy deleate Dre (album) so I can move Dre (Soulja Boy Tell 'Em album) to that space. STAT- Verse 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of restoring that one revision? STAT- Verse 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I probably could have just left it out; however, it provides a more accessible record that another editor had previously believed that a redirect was already needed back in April and the dab page Dre was edited to reflect that. You still get full credit for starting the article, though. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator

Thanks! I must have accidentally added the administrator box on my page when I first created it. Again, many thanks for the notification.Development Editor (talk)(contribs) 06:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Not a problem, glad to help. The IP was clearly stalking you because he/she had nothing better to do. I wouldn't take it personally as he/she could have picked anyone. It's a good thing you appeared online when you did because when a user makes summaries with "reverting vandalism", many Recent Changes patrollers will assume the IP is editing in good faith. I admit, I too had to check, but when I saw your long list of positive contributions, I knew that this was just another circus buffoon trying to be amusing. Anyhow, the IP is blocked now. Good riddance. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Evlekis. WP:RBI, as they say. Face-smile.svg Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My assessments of Canadian music bands/musicians

Paul, if you have a few moments, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track/page with my assessments. I'm trying to wittle down the 99 in class=NA importance=NA. I put a lot of them there earlier not being too comfortable with assessing articles:

Can the training wheels come off? :) lol Argolin (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale. Have you been using that table or something similar? Characteristics of a stub: "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition." Example: [4]. Characteristics of a Start-class article: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources... Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." The article will "need substantial improvements in content and organisation." Example: [5]
By those descriptions and examples, I believe you are not being sufficiently generous with your assessments sometimes, such as with your assessment of The Call-Up as a "stub". What do you think? (Please feel free to disagree with me!) Was there a particular reason you thought it was not good enough for Start-class? Thanks, Argolin. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I too have been using the Bio assessment scale. I found it helpful in determining the differences stub/start/C etc... I'll re-read them again and put a link an my page to it.
I guess I haven't been generous enough sometimes. I'm not impressed by editors trying to include notability by association. Band X has played at this/that fesival and have shared the stage with A, B, C, D, ... etc.
In the case of The Call-Up, reading the article again, I think the opening under the history subfooter is problematic. However, I think one editor was trying to provide context to the recording of the EP. We are agreed, I'll raise it to a start class.
Is it correct then that "content" comes in two forms: written and style (format/strucutre of an article, infobox, proper categorisation, etc...)? Argolin (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about your question here. I'm not sure I would have divided it that way, but I think I understand what you're getting at. An article might have high-quality layout and style, but be low-quality with its content and comprehensiveness. Even separate from that, the actual writing quality might rate better or worse than those other qualities. Typically an article will improve in all those domains at a similar pace as it goes through its stages of development... when it doesn't, it would make an assessment of overall "quality" difficult to do. (Sorry for all the links! You're probably aware of most of them.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Until yesterday, I assumed the importance rating on the Canada project's template was transcluded from this documentation. You may already know that the Wikipedia administration has finally released the new class ratings! They are much improved!!! Check out this link: Category:Unknown-importance Canadian music articles. Argolin (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Danna

Hello Paul,

Please stop erasing my edit to Jeff Danna's page. I am Jeff's assistant and hold the copyright to the bio that I submitted to wikipedia. I did not copy and paste the bio from any other page, seeing as I wrote it. However, other pages might also use this bio.

Thanks for understanding!

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.148.128 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Had an IP (recently blocked, appealed, denied) who's been reverting your contributions as vandalism. I think the vandalpatrol got them all but you might want to check. Is there a known user who specifically targets your revisions? I'm wondering if this IP is a sockpuppet. The IP's contributions are here. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers! --N419BH (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the cleanup. It's an anon who is apparently mad at me for reverting his joke edits to the Joseph Cirincione article. I'm just ignoring for the time being. But he seems to be unaware that unregistered editing from an IP address is traceable; his address is in Montreal, using Bell Sympatico internet. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I passed that information along to the admin who made the block. If he shows up again under another IP I'll let you know. --N419BH (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Republic

Hello Paul. As you're an admin, can I ask a favour in that you assert your authority with The New Republic article. It has been unstable for a few days now.

Scenario 1: A new user claiming to be the real Jason Zengerle, called User:Jasonzengerle makes his first appearance and removes a section of text here. I assume the edit to be vandalism so I revert the contribution. Shortly after, the user left a message on my talk page and explained his situation.

Scenario 2: Realising that the user is genuine and not here to vandalise pages, I decide not to interfere with the user who reverts me here. He has done this after explaining to me the full circumstance; he has also cited the sources to be unreliable.

Scenario 3: Since 8 May, a new user has suddenly burst onto the scene. He calls himself User:Seafood.mama and he insists on restoring the version damaging to the other editor. See his contributions.

Now, I don't honestly know who is right and who is wrong here, but I can deduce two factors. Both Jasonzengerle and Seafood.mama are here to push a single point with neither seemingly interested in editing elsewhere; I contend however that the former has been more approachable in that he has both discussed his proposals (on my talk page, and I have replied on his), and that he has not engaged in an edit war. It was I who on the last two occasions restored Jason's preferred revision. In all honesty, I do take umbrage when IPs or non-established single-issue users revert my edits. What is clear is that the version preferred by Seafood is the work of one single editor, and I believe that no other user with an interest would restore the information removed by Jason. I did explain to Jason that good faith patrollers or admins may take issue with his edits because sourced information was removed but that does not mean that those users are disagreeing with him. He may just be required to provide more information explaining himself. Seafood is clearly here to push a point and he has not yet consulted the talk page or written to Jason. It is more than 48 hours since his first appearance so he has had ample time, and his absence from editing elsewhere ascertains that he did not open his account to become a vandal fighter or a true Wikipedian. Jason has not edited elsewhere either but he has had the decency to declare his position from the onset and engage in discussion. To this end, can I ask that the page be locked to IPs and non-established users until such time as Jason and Seafood both discuss with each other and provide more reliable sources for both angles. Because Jason has been less disruptive, I also ask that we keep his version until either a concensus has been reached or a decision has been jointly made by the two opposing factions. In all honestly, I don't know where I really stand on this one. Thanks Paul. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, with the idea that we err on the side of keeping material with dubious relevance and sourcing out of articles until there is consensus, per BLP policy I have protected it as you suggested. Might I leave you the responsibility of beginning a talk page discussion at Talk:The New Republic? Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment from a talk page stalker: Seafood.mama (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of Moose.end.squirrel (talk · contribs) and Dubious.achievement (talk · contribs) (all SPAs), who originally added/expanded the questionable material. Would a SPI be able to pre-empt the creation of further SPAs? -M.Nelson (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Good find, M.nelson. Yes, I think it potentially could. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dubious.achievement. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much M.nelson. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Following up on this, now that I had some time to look at the section of text that was being edit-warred over: The sourcing does not support that there has been any sort of widespread "controversy" about Jason Zengerle. From where I sit, removing the text was the right thing to do, as it was a BLP violation. (Sorry for my quick comments before I looked more carefully—I now see less value in the sock puppet investigation, as edits by these "throwaway" accounts can simply be reverted, and the article protected if need be.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your work Paul, and if there is any way I can help, I will. Do you still suggest we open a full discussion on the talk page or shall we simply let sleeping dogs lie by keeping the page protected? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. I don't think a full talk page discussion is needed at this point, as I find it hard to imagine that any regular editors of the article would advocate for inclusion of the material. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul (and Evlekis and M.nelson), Thanks so much for all of your help with this. I really appreciate it. I'll send an email, per your suggestion. Again, many thanks. Jasonzengerle (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle

Thanks for your message, Jason. Sorry that the poorly referenced so-called "controversy" about you remained on Wikipedia for as long as it did. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Elise Estrada Copyright Violation

Hey Paul Erik,

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, but the copy/paste was not a copyright violation by any means. As it was properly authorized, although the tone may need a bit improvement as mentioned.

Regards, Matt

Mat2crack (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Paul Erik,
I am not sure if I am conversing correctly in these "talk" sections, since this is the first time I'm trying this so bare with me please. By "properly authorized" I mean it's authorized by herself and her record label who wanted that particular bio up, but as it does seem to be a bit promotional it will need some minor revisions to neutralize the tone!
Regards,
Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat2crack (talkcontribs) 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Love on Ice

Thanks for keeping the love on ice page I started. Contrary to the person who requested they be removed they have an gold album with the bill and ted sound track. According to the protocols set forth, they meet the criteria on many points, I haven't had time to fill it all in but they have been in many national publications, videos on MTV and where played extensively on the radio in the early nineties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugly92 (talkcontribs) 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits at Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté

Thank you for these copyedits! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, no problem at all! I had actually intended to stop by your talk page and compliment you on the well-written article you put together. Nice work. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Heyy(:

Hi i am Jake chamberlain, I had no problem with the Wikipedia, infact i was quite proud. Is there any way you can get it back. I believe you had no right to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.113.11 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm not sure which deleted article you are talking about. Is it Jake chamberlain? That article was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) back in 2006. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WP cleanup templates

Hey Paul, what a busy guy you are! If you have a few minutes can you have a look at Template:Canadian music quick links? With the exception of the group "Stub Templates", it's not meant to be exhaustive. Only the most common ones in use by editors. I'm not sure about the group "Article cleanup templates". I really don't use them all that much. I tried choosing at least one from each major section.

  1. Are there too many listed in the group "Article cleanup templates"
  2. Any missing from group "Article cleanup templates"
  3. Other comments/opinions (Once agian I ask! :)

Argolin (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are working hard too! Yes, I think there are too many article cleanup templates; the more you add the more difficult it is to select one, and you have included some that I have never seen used in Canadian music articles... did you have a way of deciding which ones are in common use? Oh, and you have {{BLP unsourced}} listed twice. Also, a list of tools that editors use (as opposed to readers) should generally not be listed in the encyclopedia space—so, it's fine to put it in the Wikiproject but not in, say, List of Canadian musicians, or the categories. At least I think that's the case. Have you seen a similar quick-links template used for other topics? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was too busy. I more/less chose one from each major section from WP:TMC. My way of deciding the most common is to ask. I value your opinion. Which ones should be removed? Argolin (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for asking me. I wasn't sure if there were some statistics that said how often the cleanup templates get used in articles in general. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Should the two groups "Article cleanup templates" and "Guidelines" be removed? Argolin (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think so; I think it might be best to keep it to things that are more specifically related to Canadian music articles. But keep the infoboxes. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the group "Article cleanup templates". I added that group after running it by Moxy. I'm sure you know what he is like. He's just thrilled that you're doing someting :) He did not have a problem with the music specific guidelines. What now? Argolin (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, I just remembered I had a link for the Jubileeclipman on my talk page. He seems to be a master of templates. I don't want to put you on the spot with things you may not be overly familiar. I'll ask him about the template namespace placement and about the music guidelines. Does that sound fair to you? Argolin (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good! I was just going to say that the template should be removed from all encyclopedia space, which includes categories, as the template is directed at editors, while the categories are used more for readers browsing. I don't have a problem with the music guidelines being included in the template, though. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed it from the article. I'll remove it from the 3 or 4 category namespaces. I'll add it to our project. I'll read the the template guideline. I came across it a while ago when I was looking for guidance on naming the category namespace. (On a side note: did i find anyting? no! is there naming consistency out there now? no! are there big tree limbs missing from the categories? yes!). Paul thanks again for your help. Argolin (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Thanks for those updates, by the way! I also wanted to say that I hope that when I disagree with something that you've done, it does not come across that I'm discouraging you. You're doing good work, here. Keep it up! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lee's Palace

Paul, can I impose upon you to add references to the article Lee's Palace? I am looking to give the other Canadian music venues a similar format. I am not looking for you to cite the entire article. Just some, so that I have a good basis to go on. Argolin (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Argolin. Sure, I'll try to find some references over the next few days. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, oh my! I discovered the cite web template. lol!!! I added one to the article. I think I'll be ok here on in. :) I'm having a Homer moment. I'll rate and assess the article. No big hurry, can you review the article and check my assessment?
On a similar note, there is a merge discussion regarding the Template:Infobox venue and Template:Infobox building. I'm going to add my two cents. There is next to no usage documentation for the T:infobox building. How can I agree to a merge? Thanks as always! Argolin (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee (TV series)

Hi Paul, first off thanks for responding to why my link was constantly being deleted, and I can appreciate the need to keep things "nice and neat." That being said, why is the glee concert ticket site? This is a commercial site that provides less information than mine. If you take a look at the site, I offer lyrics, free videos, and episodes that are not hosted on my site. Please explain your decision to let that site stay and mine get deleted.

Todd Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.135.0.12 (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Todd. I had not looked carefully before but you're right—that other link to a commercial site was in violation of our guidelines. As for your own site, please bring it up on the talk page to see if editors want it included, rather than repeatedly adding it yourself; see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with the CfD people

Paul, I need to call upon your assistance as an administrator. I can't believe the nastiness that occurs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. They have rules in place among them: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I was just about to post a follow up for a rename discussion [6]informing user Occuli that I found his "cute" comment offensive and to keep to the discussion at hand per wiki guidelines. The "discussion" is closed; the rename is done. I have complained to another admin for yet other comments posted. It's apparently a degree of nastiness at the CFD. I have also asked about the work instructions for the CFD. They are hard to follow and are not written in a form in what I would expect from Wikipedia. I even offered to help in a re-write. What am I to do? I am considering closing my account and walking away. Argolin (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Argolin. I'm sorry to hear that you are close to a point of walking away! I haven't looked into the history of your CFD experiences, but one thing I would say is that there are bound to be disagreements at times with what you are doing; if you do a lot of edits, it's going to happen at some point. I know that from my own personal experience. Sometimes people have been kind in how they have expressed things to me and at other times there's been some nastiness. Generally, I've found things go better when I reply in a friendly way, even if I feel like sniping back. There have been some times, though, when another editor's responses to my attempts to remain civil have just continued to be antagonizing; here is one example from a couple of years ago: User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 4#Missreading MoS. I needed to just walk away from that one and go edit somewhere else. There's also some varying degrees of helpful advice at Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Paul. I have decided to stay away from the Cfd group. I don't care anymore. I have lost all interest in trying to learn their process. I'll keep my account for now and do my best at Canadian music. I guess you can say my Wikipedia bubble has burst! lol Most of my dealings have been with yourself, Bearcat, and Moxy. I only realised that you were and admin last week. I thought most Wikipedia users were like you three. Argolin (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)