User talk:Simplebay

Speedy deletion nomination of Thelastplaceyoulook

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Thelastplaceyoulook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Thelastplaceyoulook do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 19:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Thelastplaceyoulook. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Thelastplaceyoulook. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to update Thelastplaceyoulook as well as See The Light Inside You and i am removing bias, it conforms to neutral voice, and has many more sources than say the proper The Last Place You Look page, which has zero sources since 2008. So as to conform to wikipedia's standards, and i am fairly new at editing articles, pleas give me direct suggestions i can use to properly customized the page, as there is a lot more content and un-bias than some other pages, as i have shown.

The page still has plenty of unverified claims talking about how "successful" things were. OlYeller^Talktome 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please see my latest changes? The word success isn't on the page at all. Also, for See The Light Inside You, there are 4 links on the parent page to it, and it is properly formatted and sourced as compred to this album of the same name: The Last Place You Look.

You have added the templates, but the article clearly conforms to wikipedia's standards, especially in lieu of other musical band pages. Can you please tell me what else i should change?

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thelastplaceyoulook, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. The issues have not been handled yet. Slow down and read WP:NPOV. I know you're a fan of the band but we have guidelines that pertain to such text that are currently not being followed.

Also, citing "the manual" as you did in your edit summary isn't going to get you anywhere. That's like citing "the law" in court. Citing a specific section will work better for you. OlYeller^Talktome 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out right now so I can't cite specific places. You keep citing "Wikipedia's standards" but I have serious doubts that you've read any of them which is to be expected of a new user; they're crazy long. I can help out but not at the moment. OlYeller^Talktome 21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'd just suggest reading through it and finding all the times a claim is made (not a fact) like "the band is good" or "after a successful tour" and remove that info or add a reference from a reliable source that shows that someone actually thought it was successful. If there's no reference, the claim is considered original research and an advertisement/weasel word. The tags alert others to come and help so others might be along soon to assist you. OlYeller^Talktome 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the templates back and i wont remove them, but the article clearly conforms to wikipedia's standards in NPOV, especially in lieu of other musical band pages. Can you please tell me what else i should change? And this is what i mean by the manual... Unsupported weasel words as as follows on the manual (its manual on the pages, as yes, i have read them per the templates suggestions. and there are no more justifiable "weasel words". Per the NPOV: "... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proved ..."

i have read through the NPOV standards, as well as the weasel words and advertisement standards. Please remove these templates from the page. after my furthur edits, there are now no unbiased words stated in the page, as well as properly sourced articles.

I have also added sources to See The Light Inside You, sourced it multiple times from the only relevant parent page, as well as followed every single example set forth by the wikipedia standards for article formatting:

   Please replace HTML markup with wiki markup where appropriate. *done*
   Add wikilinks. Where appropriate, make links to other articles by putting 'and' on either side of relevant words (see WP:LINK for more information) and check that your links work as expected..... *done*
   Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph. *done*
   Arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.*done*
   Add an infobox if it is appropriate for the article.*done*
   Remove this tag.*not allowed to do. please do this.*

23:22 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at See The Light Inside You, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OlYeller^Talktome 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware but creating another account doesn't hide one's identity. It's called sockpuppetry and is grounds blocking a person from editing Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for for the clarification, but i did not create any accounts. I own 1 account. This one. created in 2008. Please use an IP lookup on the accounts making the change. It is not this account, my IP address, or me. And there are multiple accounts, ranging from various cretion dates, and tehrefore clearly not puppets. As i am having other contributors and moderators edit the account. Please do not try to start a fight with me, i am trying to create a beneficial page on behalf the involved party. You still have not cited any reasons for the reapplying the templates, and the 2 other moderators who have edited the pages have not been able to find the same reasons either

What are the odds an SPI will clear this user? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check the IP address for the post edits. They probably arent even in the same city. I have no idea who the other users who edited this page are. But I do know that there are a lot of interested parties trying to get this page up and running

Why are the templates being placed back, with no reason? Also, Jeff G, you modified the references, and OldYeller has placed a wikify template on there because the references are not formatted correctly.

Hey, those edits look good. I haven't read through the whole article yet but it looks like you addressing issues nicely. OlYeller^Talktome 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please let me know if anything else jumps out at you, I will happily modify or remove it if necessary. Also, im not sure how else the references need properly formatting. I've read the [[References]] page, and am not sure how else to properly format them

They've all been addressed so I removed them all. I see some unsourced claims but they're not defamatory or advertorial so I'm not going to worry about them. One is about a new record that has no reference. Obviously not a world-ender. I did have to remove some external links per WP:EL though. I'll take a look at the album article too and see if it's good to go. OlYeller^Talktome 00:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album page is still an WP:ORPHAN and I doubt there will be another articles that talk about the album so it probably isn't going anywhere soon. If you want to get rid of it, find some other pages that would organically mention it, add a mention, and link it to the album. Just try not to make it out of no-where in another article. OlYeller^Talktome 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I will do. I will probably be adding a subsequent page for the original EP, as it can be sourced and formatted correctly. So I might to be able cross-reference the two album orphan pages as i see quite a few other bands have done. Other than that, yeah it's probably not going to be referenced by anywhere else.

Sounds good to me. Keep up the good work! OlYeller^Talktome 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new articles look good. If you're looking for more work, I'd head over to WP:Wikiproject Music. They have plenty of work to do. OlYeller^Talktome 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed a problem in some of the pages you created. Per WP:REPEATLINK, only the first occurrence of a subject should be linked. Can you go back and remove the links to other pages after the first link? I'm having trouble explaining this for some reason so let me know if this doesn't make sense. I was going to tag them but as you're on top of those pages, I thought I'd just ask. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! 18:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]