User talk:TheSkozz

Speedy deletion of DiscussMusic.net

A tag has been placed on DiscussMusic.net requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Largo Plazo (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DiscussMusic.net

A tag has been placed on DiscussMusic.net requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Jons63 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DiscussMusic.net deleted

I have deleted DiscussMusic.net per speedy deletion criterion A7. That is for Web sites where notability is not asserted. Forget actual notability - no notability was even asserted (i.e. no one even bothered to say that it was notable), let alone proven. Please do not recreate the article unless you intend to fully satisfy the requirements laid out in WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not continue to add links to discussmusic.net in various articles without discussing them on the proper talk pages first and achieving consensus that it is a good idea to add them. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of others don't have to do that, I don't have to do that. Stop the discriminating this once.TheSkozz (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to replace that pseudo-review again will be reverted inmediatly per WP:SPAM, It's autopromotion, spam, and it's a forum, it is not a professional review, and so, an original research.--Kmaster (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Spam, you're spamming my page, and all of the removing of ARTICLES THAT SHOULD BE HERE is VANDALISM! It's a professional review, much more professional than you admins. Just because it's on forums, doesn't mean anything. What about the other ones, huh? And how is it original research, WHEN I LISTENED TO THE ALBUM, just like EVERY OTHER REVIEW OUT THERE? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOOWIeVKDk & http://www.gopetition.com/online/22210.html There you go. Have fun.TheSkozz (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's original research because YOU are providing a link to YOUR review. That is significant. It really isn't that complicated a concept, and I suspect that you understand it, you just don't like it. You seem unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is not a do-whatever-you-want service, that it has policies and guidelines that are meant to be followed, and that people are encouraged to (reasonably) apply them, and admins are empowered to enforce them. Honestly, we aren't making these things up just to upset you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OTHER people have posted MINE too, but they're STILL Removed. What about that, huh? I was just adding back what BELONGS. I obviously understand fully, it's clear that you do not. You want to run things just how you want them, and not how it should be. Action will be taken, and I will help make Wikipedia a better place, no thanks to the people like you who are destroying it.TheSkozz (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is rather incoherent, at least insofar as I can see for myself in the history of the Death Magnetic article that you, not someone else, added your review to begin with. That's what I'm seeing, and that's what I'm warning you about. Meanwhile, you begin talking about links to your reviews being posted by others and then being removed, yet you don't say where this is happening, and that is very interesting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion that got you to campaign against Wikipedia, is it? I see no discrimination. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Death Magnetic. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Amalthea^Talk 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC) LMAO If you block me, it just proves even more how desperate and stupid you people are being. I'm not being a vandal, all of you are. Quit acting like you're above the law, and be realistic. Let true information stand, and get a life, and stop causing so many problems.TheSkozz (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick quiz: show all of us what "law" allows you to post self-serving links to your own website. Isn't funny, that we give you links to the policies and guidelines and you pretend they aren't there or don't apply to you; but then you start screaming that other people aren't following the rules, yet you don't point to a single rule that they're breaking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the Shogun page. How are those reviews more notable than mine? 3 have no link, and the other, what the Hell is Thrash Hits? If DiscussMusic.net isn't notable, how is that?

By your standards that you keep claiming, only Rock Sound would be allowed. But I checked that page, and guess what? It's been marked for no refereces and no notability since June, yet it's still there. Proof of discrimination. This better end, and soon. Thank you.TheSkozz (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about Shogun, I covered that with you already. The other links were all put there by one person, and they lead to reviews by long-standing, published magazines. They aren't links to his own review. You are adding links to your own review on your website for which you haven't demonstrated notability. Those are key differences. The Rock Sound article may be flawed, but that doesn't mean the magazine behind it isn't real and established. And here is one more case where you added your own link from scratch, so there isn't any point in giving me the same explanation as before about someone else having put up your link and then another person having taken it down. That is not what's happening. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Double standards at its finest. Stop your pointless rambling, and learn to make some sense. Also, please stop thoughtlessly spamming my page. If you've not noticed before, I said I would continue on this later. But for now, I'm being peaceful, and I suggest you do the same. Now stop spamming my damn page.TheSkozz (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one question, though (Yes, I spy; rather, forgot to unwatch your talk page); where is the double standard therein? I fail to see it. Your site is a forum, and WP:RS says forums are not reliable sources. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't see that, based on the context clues I've already given, I suggest researching what double standards are. Either that, or you're blind. Now for the last time, stop harassing me, and fuck off.TheSkozz (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a violation of WP:NPA. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation for you to keep harassing me and leaving messages on my page after I've requested many times for you to stop. Now stop, or I'm reporting you. Thank you, and have a nice day.TheSkozz (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your video

As for that video, I noticed a complaint of adding 'true' information verses 'false' information. First of all, WP:V states that truth is not an element on Wikipedia, but rather, verifiability. It states: "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That means if we have a reliable source to prove something, its generally accepted as true. If we do not have a reliable source to cite, even if the information is true, it is generally seen as original research, which is not allowed. If an editor continually adds uncited information after it is removed, he or she is violating the three-revert rule, which state that any more than three reversions of other editors' content on a single article within twenty four hours is grounds for ban. These rules are not set in place to "discriminate" editors, but to keep the project running with as little trouble and uncited information as possible. By signing up for Wikipedia, you agree to these terms of their service, that if you violate these rules, they can ban you. You, therefore, have no right to say that they are wrong in doing that -- You agreed to it, and it is a legally binding contract. Also, please refrain from calling anybody out on discrimination if they are simply expressing a conflict in interest. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If I was breaking the rules, that would be different. But I'm not, so too bad for you. :)TheSkozz (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You broke WP:NPA and you're on the verge of breaking WP:3RR. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I clearly haven't broken the WP:NPA rule, and I'm on no verge of breaking anything else, because I've not added anything for a while now, and am harming nobody. What about yourself, and the harassment from you and your cronies?TheSkozz (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA my friend? Expressing conflict in interest is not a violation, but accusing people of discrimination and bias is, which is what you did, man. 'Harassment?' What harassment? You're the one that kept responding -- had you left well enough alone, we would not push you, and we are not pushing you as it is. We are not stalking you, we are not making constant derogatory remarks on your talk page for the nasty things you are saying to us; we are simply telling you what rules your edits are violating when you try and talk to us on the Death Magnetic talk page. That's not harassment, my friend. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How is defending myself, and being discriminated against, violating myself? I'm simply stating the truth, that's not against the rules. Nor am I attacking anyone, yet I'm being attacked. I've yet to say anything nasty, or insult any of you. I'm going about this in a professional manner. Too bad you all can't do the same. If you wish to speak about this in further, you can gladly message me on Youtube, or I can give you one of my IM's. But as for now, as far as I'm concerned, this is case closed, and I will take further action later on. Thank you, "my friend".TheSkozz (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring me again, completely... Defending yourself against what, anyways? The editors were telling you that your review does not comply with the notability guidelines, albeit I agree its well-written, but it does not comply with notability guidelines. So what is there to defend? Your honor or something? You do not seem to understand the guidelines, my friend. If something is not proven to be notable (Which you have not proven in the Death Magnetic talk page, but I have yet to check the other debate), it is generally deemed non-notable, until proven it is. There is no "prove this is not notable," only "prove this is notable."

Those people were not discriminating you, they were telling you what you were not complying with. Do you even know the meaning of the word discrimination? Let's say you're African American. Now, let's say I revert your edit over and over and you get banned for fighting me, simply because you're African American. That, my friend, is discrimination. A conflict of interest problem is not discrimination, and discussion on issues directly regarding the conflict is not discrimination until derogatory marks start to play themselves into it, which they did. But its quite the opposite, you were the one who started with the derogatory remarks, not the other editors. Shall I pull some quotes directly? "I've already read that stuff, you robots." Calling us robots, could offend us. "stop your discrimination, and the bias." Accusing us of discrimination and bias is also a violation of WP:NPA. Please define, using guidelines, our supposed discrimination against you, although I'm guessing that the only reason you're so blatantly disregarding the rules and other editors is because its your own review, from your own website, and you, therefore, are biased to it. In the spirit of WP:CON, WP:RS, and WP:NPA, I'm asking you to give this up. Nobody has anything personal against you, and nobody is insulting you, we simply cannot allow non-notable content in. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --The Guy _complain ^edits 12:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thedarxide (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) This is the first time I've even been online in October, for one. And I've asked numerous times to be left alone, and it's not happened. So the personal attacks are on me, not the other way around. I would greatly appreciate this harassment to be stopped, and for my page to stop being spammed. Thank you, and have a nice day.TheSkozz (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution list says otherwise. I believe you told me to "fuck off" on October 1, and I see you also made many edits on the second. So this is certainly not the first day you've been on in October. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to take a nice deep breath, back up and walk away from the computer. No one needs to tell anyone "fuck off" and no one needs to requote it. Today is the 2nd, a day later, don't bring it back up...let it go. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, which is what I've been trying to do all along, but TheGuy simply won't stop the harassment. Please let this be the last of that conversation.TheSkozz (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WNVA-FM

The formatting information we use is via 100000watts.com, which lists WNVA as a Country/Adult Contemporary formatted station. Unfortunately, when you edit this page (because you have worked there), we run into conflict of interest issues. If you can give the information to me and I add it, we get around this. Your edits are welcome. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope they're welcome. Because right now, I feel it's being removed just because I'm hated by the Wikipedia staff.

WNVA isn't just a Bluegrass and Adult Contemporary station, as it is clearly known as Mix 106. It has no set genre, and plays a little of everything. Many of the DJ's play Bluegrass, while others play Rock, and still others play Gospel, etc. It also feeds in from a larger station that plays Adult Contemporary, but as well as Soft Rock, Pop, etc.

This can be confirmed with a phone call, or actually listening to the radio station(I would know much more about this, due to the fact I live near it, and used to work there). Any online source for this station can't be deemed accurate or notable, due to the fact that it's a small-time radio station, and doesn't even have its own website.TheSkozz (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, my edits were removed even before I explained I worked there, so I know it wasn't removed due to a conflict of interests.TheSkozz (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

By what you have discribed, it sounds like WNVA is a "Variety" station. That would be the format. When a station plays "everything", their technical format genre is "Variety". I will switch that out posthaste. I would listen if I could, but I am in the top of the state near Winchester, so I can't get WNVA here. If they do get a website, please let me know. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a Variety station, which I was going to put on the page. But due to other genres being listed, I added on to make things more accurate, by putting the main genres that were played.

And I also wanted it noted that the station does other things than just play music, but those edits were also removed.TheSkozz (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Also, thanks for actually being the most courteous, and most logical individual I've dealt with on Wikipedia. Thanks, and take it easy.TheSkozz (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it play talk programs? News information shows? Because you are stepping into an entirely different format there. Also ff you could get a logo for WNVA-FM and AM, that would make the page better. Not a problem, that is what I am here for :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It plays Nascar Races, as well as Nascar talk programs. It also provides the news and weather, school-changes, etc. But those are pretty standard when it comes to any radio station, at least around here. Live Feeds are also common, such as local football games, Fair coverage, and other specialties like that. I'll see if I can find a logo. I may have to scan it. They use the same one for both AM and FM though. AM takes the proverbial backseat to the FM, and isn't taken as seriously. Just has some gospel programs on Sunday mornings, then the rest is piped in from the same as the FM section. Which technically would make The AM side not just a Gosepl or Southern Gospel station as well. That is what it is known for mainly on Sundays, but the rest of the week, it's pretty much the same as FM. They're both in the same building, by the way.TheSkozz (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, that sounds Full Service. Which is local news/local talk with music (some local), local programming (be it church programming, high school football, etc) with nothing piped in from any satellite format (like Jones or Dial Global)...that doesn't include top-of-the-hour news (that can be piped in). Let me switch it to Full Service because that is what it sounds like. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be original research, though, if you cannot find a reliable source for any of this? I looked through the article's history, and the "facts" being added are probably facts, but they are not backed by reliable sources. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All information on the page is backed by the FCC website, 100000watts.com, Radio and Records, Radio-Locator.com and Arbitron (for it's link). Nothing on there is OR. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. Full Service is what it's technically considered, even though they do focus on more aspects than others. But that's how it goes with any radio station.TheSkozz (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent :) Glad we got that worked out. Please let me know if you find that logo. If you upload it, I can put the F-UR on it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)