User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 2

Hi Duff

Hi, I'm removing your edits to the Phatchance page - I have spoken with the moderator who approved the removal and had various discussions with the contributors to the old page, this flies with everyone. If you wish to make any changes please put it up for a deletion prod so I can quickly railroad you out. I ran this past a few people before I put it up, I will keep some of the minor phrasing edits but given that I've done research and not found a single other artist covered by the Australian I'll be keeping that too. Please keep yourself out of the page this time; particularly given your aggressiveness and arrogance, cheers. The thing I find funniest is you proding it for notability again after the addition of the unearthed feature, myspace feature, radio playlisting and coverage in the national paper. I have no idea what your personal gripe is with Chance but marking half of it as 'bullshit' definitely shows animosity Stevezimmy (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stick to reality please. I called only one half of one sentence bullshit and it was. "and is possibly the only Australian hip hop artist to receive coverage in the countries most popular broadsheet The Australian". Perhaps you should have looked before you wrote that. A quick look for Hilltop Hoods (an obvious place to start when looking) shows they have recieved coverage on multiple occasions. A little bit more of a look shows more artists with coverage. I also never prodded this article. What sort of moderator did you talk to? Wikipedia doesn't have them. How did you talk to this non existant moderator? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Moderator is the wrong word - I talked to the decision maker of the last deletion case, he told me if I provided one more third party review the article would fly; instead I provided a whole host of primary sources and new information. I also didn't mean prod, I meant notability/reliability marked it - you obviously have some kind of gripe with Chance to keep coming back and fighting about it, was calling it 'bullshit' really appropriate? I should have searched out the hilltop hoods articles, I just went by what I'd read on a forum. I have retained 90% of your edits to come to a mutually satisfactory medium. I can get screen captures of the Myspace feature, can you please explain to me how to put these up? Also there's no kind of citation available for the Single of the week FBi thing, they're an independent station and update their website regularly so I will leave the citation needed tags. Stevezimmy (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What did he actaully say. That one article was good enough to stop a speedy for repost. It was also good enough to give it a better chance at afd if anyone ever sent it there again. It was also good enough to stop me from ever nominating it for deletion again. It was not good enough to allow any pov article to remain unquestioned. That addition of that short review did not really show his notability, hence the tag. The further article I found added to the notability and could have justified my removing it if you were just patient. But now we have another editor questioning his notability. I won't remove the tag but I will readd it if you do. Calling it bullshit may have been too much, but so was the claim. As for the myspace thing, there are place available for the free uplading of images, I don't know what they are but can look into for you if you want. However myspace is still not a reliable source. As for your claims of a gripe, I'd just like to remind you of WP:ADHOM and WP:FAITH pointed out to you at a previous afd.duffbeerforme (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a whole heap of street press articles, reviews etc. that I could happily post - but they are contextually irrelevant to the crux of the article - please see (http://www.onion.com.au/article/80 - http://musicfeeds.com.au/music/phatchance/ - http://scenemagazine.com.au/index.php/component/content/article/615-phatchance-interview etc. etc.) I have contacted the other user and requested that he discuss further notability marking with me, if both of you feel it's relevant enough to take it to AFD then so be it and I am happy to debate the matter there. Thank you for sourcing the article further Stevezimmy (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I clearly stated I am not going to nominate this article for deletion. If you have coverage in reliable sources that you think are contextually irrelevant to the crux of the article, add them as external links. As Phatchances notability currently rides on such coverage adding is the smart thing to do. As for the notability tag, I still stand by what I said above. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to leave the marker there - so it appears we have a conflict, what is the appropriate way to resolve this? Here are the myspace citations you asked for http://img4.imageshack.us/i/myspacefeature2.jpg/ http://img7.imageshack.us/i/myspacefeature.jpg/ Stevezimmy (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For now you should leave it there WP:3RR duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* how would you like me to address the concern so we can resolve this debate? Do you feel the additional coverage I have posted on this page and additional citation material is sufficient? There are plenty more street press articles I can dig up if necessary - how many exactly do you need to drop this debate? 4? 5? 10? 1000? Why exactly are your standards so different here, to, for instance, the other Australian hip hop articles I regularly see you contributing to? You keep citing WP:FAITH but I see very little of it on your part Stevezimmy (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple. You leave the tag alone, I'll leave the tag alone. Want a third opinion got to WP:THIRD and get an uninvolved opinion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have pointed you to third on my previous reply/ duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: wp:faith. respecting that I at no point till now that you ask the question have I pointed to the fact you are mostly a SPA with a very large interest in getting a Phatchance article included in wikipedia, a very strong indicator of a conflict of interest. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You made it extremely clear that was your concern in the last afd, since then I have created and edited numerous articles for other bands in the genre and contributed small edits to a whole range of pages, apologies for not living on Wiki! I will discuss it with bongomatic since he was the one who marked the article - I am open to the debate. I think that the notability marker is the wrong marker, if it were the primary sources marker I would not have the issue - but I feel (obviously you disagree) that I've satisfied those complaints. Stevezimmy (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I made no such sugestions in the last afd. Please come back to reality. I added the notability tag as notability is currently based entirly on covergae in independent reliable sources. An appropriate marker. That said, why did you keep removing the primarysources tag when a large proportion of sources are primary sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

so far as I can see maybe two, or three of the total sources are primary and the rest are third party? Maybe you're looking at a different article? I see Triple J Unearthed articles, The Australian, Triple J, various street press, radio playlists etc. what exactly about those sources is not independent and third party? You did make such a suggestion in the last afd actually, we argued about it, I remember because it turned me pretty sour to the way stuff is on wikipedia. Could you please explain to me how I put in external sources to the article without directly referencing them? Stevezimmy (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nurcha * 3, jb hifi info, schowcase is by Waters, not about, Unearth feature is just waters talking about himself. Unreliable sources can mostly be ignored leaving primary sources as a large proportion. Please point out my suggestion of coi (afd link to help you look, note my lack of participation despite your personal attack, mostly positive participation at that). "put in external sources to the article without directly referencing them" External Links. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

you may be thinking of Bongomatic's SPA tag [[1]]. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

David Toledo (Artist) Article

Hello Duffbeerforme

We appreciate your involvement in keeping Wiki clutter free. Unfortunately your editing of the David Toledo (artist) article has had a snowball effect of causing healthy links to be deleted.

David Toledo recently acted as Director for the Unified Outreach/Precious Casting 2010 Mac Fashion House project for low income inner city youth. His involvement with Unified Outreach is very real and easily authenticated. Please contact me at 206-333-8118 with questions. Additionally, I believe samples of all his works are available online, if now I am sure we can make arrangements to send you samples for your perusal.

Thank you for your time and effort, please keep up the good work.

UO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyslas (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Joshyslas made a related post on my talk page, and I made a response there. You may wish to read them. I have also made a comment referring to the above post on Joshyslas's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When the Lights Go Down

While understanding your removal of the dozens of mini reviews that comprised the article, I have determined that When the Lights Go Down has been itself been both praised and panned in multiple reliable sources for years.[2] I have added some citations to the article, more are available, and feel that the book has an independent notability through GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect and warning?

Hi! I saw you had redirected many articles I have written, I was wondering why and also you haven't mentioning anything in the discussion pages before your actions. Also you sent me a warning, I have no connection to the articles I write and everything I have written has reliable sources. Please tell me why you redirect the articles, especially without a discussion! If you want the pages improved you can add a Cleanup template. --Garne^sson... 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

because they show no indication of individual notability. as for your claim of no connection,quack duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

At least some of the articles are notable, e.g. the Two Door Cinema Club-articles, they are notable! TDCC played a few days ago on national American TV (abc), they have released their releases in America, Europe and Japan and they were featured in BBC's Sound of 2010. And Quack, just because I'm interested in some kind of music doesn't it mean I'm not neutral! When I write new articles on Wikipedia I research and try to find as notable sources as possible and I confirm what I write by using multiple reliable sources. --Garne^sson... 14:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

They are notable but not everyting they do is notable. And where is your sources here, here, etc? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point... But for example You Love Her Coz She's Dead, first of all isn't it redirected wrong!? Second, when I wrote the article there where sources.. But I know some user, who I think has been banned, erased the sources. --Garne^sson... 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Duff I feel you are being extremely trigger happy here. Because of the nature of those compilations they aren't going to be easy to reference; the fact they are a compilation release from the period featuring extremely notable artists on a reputable record label indicates they are worth keeping as part of Wikipedia IMHO. Happy to contribute to any delete discussions but I feel the prod is unnecessary; as I often feel with your contributions here you would be much better off sourcing the articles yourself, rather than suggesting their deletionStevezimmy (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

without references they are not notable. having notable artists on a reputable record label does not make them notable. delete discussion is here duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, without adequate references they are prone to deletion, this doesn't mean they are not notable. Notability doesn't necessarily correlate to availability of third party sources, if for instance this were an article about an esoteric branch of particle physics it would warrant inclusion and undoubtedly lack references - there's a cultural phenomena at play here where verifiable information is deemed non notable in an instance where if it weren't about an artistic creation, but rather a scientific or cultural endeavour/event it would be included. As per quack if it looks like a notable compilation, sounds like a notable compilation and is released on a notable record label, it's a notable compilation, regardless of coverage in pitchfork. Stevezimmy (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

without references they are not notable. I'm not saying if we don't find references (and yes I did look), I'm saying without. yes, sometimes articles on notable subjects are deleted cos their not found. what makes a notable compilation, charting, someone writing about them, stuff like that. not having a bunch of name artists. so no, it does not look like a notable compilation so isn't quacking. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

the redirect for You Love Her Coz She's Dead is based on wp:music, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable," ... "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." as that was the only claim to notability I saw. none of those sources were reliable sources. yes that editor has a bad track record of removing sources without giving a rason. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gildas & Masaya - Paris has at least some sources. But I don't have time for these discussions right now, which is sad. But I will probably recreate some of the articles later, but then with notable sources. --Garne^sson... 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

a shop and a blog, not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3

You probably intended to nominate Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3 along with Kitsuné Maison Compilation 2, but you just linked to part 2 again. Given that the deletion discussion for part 2 has been running for quite some time, it might be more appropriate to start a separate discussion for part 3. Huon (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have reached closure RE the AfD debate Duff, are you satisified with the edition of that Pitchfork article? What's the protocol in regards to getting moderation with these things? Cheers mate Stevezimmy (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We do nothing. Someone else will close the afd, probably with a keep or no consensus, meaning the article will stay. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Kitsuné Maison Compilation 3

You nominated this article for deletion. However, did you take steps to address its notability before proposing its deletion? For example. A little research and I found a review from a notable source. It's a shame I missed this AFD, because I reckon I could have saved it. 62.64.128.248 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's a nice horse you have there Duff! It is quite high though, perhaps you should get down once in a while

Alright mate, you have made it quite obvious that you are some sort of Wikipedia connoisseur and I must bow down to your superiority. Wikipedia tells me that I have to take what you are doing in good faith, so I will do so. I guess that means I have to refrain from calling you an antagonistic douchebag who trolls Wikipedia articles looking for ways to edit and alter them, and who seemingly takes pleasure in deleting other people's hard work. So I won't, in good faith, accuse you of doing such frivolous things.

I will, however, say that it may be a good idea for you to get off your high horse once in a while, and instead of just pointing out the errors within an article, perhaps you might try actually adding to them. I mean, you say The Jezabels article needs more sources and that I can't use the pictues of the album covers without some commentary on the albums themselves. Well, instead of just noting such things why didn't you go and find some more references, or make an article specifically on their two EP's. That would show that you actually care about the content of the article and about the people who may look it up hoping to learn something. Do you even know who The Jezabels are? Or did you just stumble accross this article, realise that it is not exactly perfect, crack a massive smile on you face, and do your thing? Have you even created a Wikipedia article from scratch? If so, show me and I'll check it out.

I might be new to Wikipedia, but I know how to check my contributions, your contributions, and how to add my signature, thanks. And I must say that it certainly looks like from your contributions that you do just edit for the sake of editing, and not to actually improve the articles or add to the content.

Happy editing!!! WideAwakeInTheStarFire (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

since you know how to check my contributions maybe you should have done so before writing this rant. you would have seen 3 new articles from scratch in my last 50 edits (for your convenience here is a list of articles I have started, you might notice it is more than you). also in my contributions you could have seen edits where I have improved articles and added references (eg [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). I do look for reliable sources (it takes time to find and format them) and have found some for The Jezabels which I shall add to the article despite your attitude.

there are editors around who are willing to improve articles and the use of templates such as the one I put on The Jezabels article helps them find articles in need.

do I know who The Jezebels are? doesn't matter. info should be provided that is verifiable in independent reliable sources, not fans own original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank You DB

WideAwakeInTheStarFire (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey WideAwakeInTheStarFire for the record I felt exactly the same way about Duff's editing policies (and still do to some extent) but he definitely does create new content and occasionally adds sources to articles he critiques as well. I think it's very easy (particularly when you're starting out on Wiki) to get frustrated when people criticize or edit your articles, but there's always a reason for it. There are processes in place to get third opinions on any work you put up that's edited, you can always contest edits anyway, this kind of procedure is necessary to end up with an accurate wiki. It can be annoying when dealing with indie bands and because you follow the musicians you know x or y that isn't verifiable on the internet, but unfortunately personal knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to encyclopedic content. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Seth Sentry

Hey Duff, the reference I put in there was because there was a citation request (and reference removal?) in regards to the 'most downloaded track on Triple J Unearthed' claim, something the artist himself can't verify, I just wanted to check whether it's best to leave the other source, or use both in conjunction because of that. I realise the source is double listed in the article, in an instance where two claims are verified by the one source, but they're in different points in the article, how do you reuse a source without multiplying it in the references list? Cheers mate Stevezimmy (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I put back the other reference was because instead of Triple J writing about a Triple J thing it is independent of both Triple J and Seth Sentry. Leaving the other source is good, I've put it back just now so there is now both. I've also done it in a way that you can see how to stop the source from being double listed in the references section (see this dif). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also changed the most downloaded from "in 2009" as that can be read to been most downloaded during that 1 year as opposed to more than any other song when they add all years together. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey DB

There are editors around who are willing to improve articles and the use of templates such as the one I put on the Mary Trembles, Broken Head, and The Stalkers articles helps them find articles in need. Though you may not be able to find updates on the subjects of these articles, another editor may be able to. WideAwakeInTheStarFire (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The stub notice already serves that purpose. update tag is generaly for dated stuff like "the bands next album will be released in 2008", not for bands that haven't done anything for a while. This is different from verifiabilty as All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurama (season 7)‎

Apologies for being terse; was tired and not communicating very effectively. I usually elaborate to great lengths on such matters. FWIW you were right. Ryan Norton 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think you were being terse, I was just thinking we disagreed with each other. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation of modern didgeridoo design trends

Hey Duffbeerforme, I see your point re the deletion of modern didgeridoo articles i.e spiral didgeridoo. There is also an article proliferation. I think the solution is to consolidate these articles on modern didgeridoo trends under one article on modern didgeridoo design trends. This enables the distinctive features of these modern didge designs to be expanded upon without cluttering-up the main didgeridoo page as well. Also, the didgeridoo is a distinctive traditional Australian Aboriginal instrument, and it's arguable that these design changes means that they are actually not "didgeridoos" as such. Anyway, that's my compromise solution. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain

What do you mean here are you saying that he does pass or that he doesn't pass. Mo ainm~Talk 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I said he just passed WP:GNG. I said nothing about WP:MUSICBIO cause it was not important if you pass the general notability guideline. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how it passes GNG from my reading of it the article fails "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources provided are blogs his own website and fleeting mention in the others about 2 gigs he took part in. The blog and his own website are not considered reliable sources. Mo ainm~Talk 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fans throng to Maher Zain's Album debut concert at AUC", Daily News Egypt, 26 March 2010

This article is mainly about him and his concert and is 844 words long.

"An evening dedicated to peace and harmony...", Gulf Daily News, 3 August 2010

This article has a 170 word section on Zain's life/career, more than a fleeting mention, some would call significant coverage about him.

We have articles from Egypt and Bahrain covering a Swedish artist. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Black Olive

Noticing our wiki page has been recently altered, I'm quite confused by the different Wiki texts which refer to how you can contribute to an article if you're the subject in question.

We represent Mark Olive and are responsible for all his written material, and therefore feel our knowledge about him and his status, how he writes his name ('The Black Olive') etc would be more accurate than anybody else. I'm also questioning the reformatting of the text within the page as well (i.e. the history section)...

As mentioned, I've been reading through the different reference material on Wiki and would now appreciate clearer instructions about the rules. I'm particularly confused about the text relating to a subject's website and the ability to link to it from wiki; "If your organization's article does not contain a link to your official website, you are welcome to add one. However, you should avoid adding other External links to your or your organization's website. If the link is relevant, helpful and informative and should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." I find this ambiguous.

Mark Olive is a notable personality who has a large fan base,always searching for more information on him. Obviously his website is the perfect forum for providing this information to the public, and we ensure this is constantly updated. His website also holds information about the company he has established, specialising in indigenous catering, which again, is something many people are wanting further information about (relative to Australian native herbs etc). I understand that the Wiki forum is not the place for advertising as such, but I do believe it's relevant and factual to state who he is, where he is and what he is doing - Mark Olive is a role model within Australian indigenous communities, and the fact he has established his own indigenous catering company is reflective on how far he has come.

Are you just suggesting that we re-write the page so as to not NAME the business he's established? What about the awards he's won, and the accolades he's receiving from national and international bodies? Again, I think this all reflects his accomplishments and success as an Aboriginal man, a business man, and as a Chef.

It would be useful to have specific, clear information about our questions above, particularly whether or not we can link to his website from Wiki.

The Black Olive (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That quote about links, I think you may have read it wrong. It saying add a single link to your website. Don't for example add one to the homepage and a second to the bio and a third to the catering section. Just add the single one to the homepage or his bio (which I've now done).

No I'm not suggesting rewriting it like that. If anything I'd suggest you consider not rewriting it due to your conflict of interest.

Wikipedia cannot accept copyright violations. As the text provided was taken directly from your website and the site does not release it for public use it could not be kept on this page. The only reformatting done was to remove the offending text.

Some other things to look at:

All articles must be in a neutral point of view. Such text as "charismatic style and creative approach to food" are not, using what is called peacock terms.

All information on this site should be verifiable. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.") Someone writing about themselves is not independently verifiable. So you are not the best people to write this article, your personal experiences don't fit in with wikipedia's policy of no original research. Content should be based on what has been written in independent reliable sources, such as what appears in The Age articles.

Have a look at the second of Wikipedia's Five pillars.

It is not your wiki page (I'm guessing that's not what you were intending to mean but it is worth considering).

Sorry if this sounds a bit blunt, I'm not the best writer.

Hope this helps. duffbeerforme (talk)

Proposed deletion of Fire Underground

I removed the prod tag you placed on Fire Underground, as the article was prodded on 13 February 2008 and is therefore ineligible for deletion via prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I removed the tag; I have no opinion on the merits of the deletion. Please open an AfD if you still believe it should be deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, missed that previous prod. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Maruki Community Orchestra

I can't complain; it has been several weeks since I logged in to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you put the PROD tag on Maruki Community Orchestra, an article that I had established, and its process had 'expired' hence the page is no more.

What is of some concern, however, is your reasoning for its deletion: "no real claim to notability, no evidence award nom ia major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources." Within this, the term "nom ia major":

• looks Latin, but is not; and
• has only one 'hit' in Google -- the deleted page for Maruki Community Orchestra; therefore,
• makes no sense.

I would appreciate your response to this, so that I can full understand (or not) your reasoning for the deletion of Maruki Community Orchestra.

By the way, which side of this argument do you fall? Thanks, - Peter Ellis - Talk 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• nom = nomination. ia was meant to be is. no evidence award nomination is major. As nominations for major awards can make bands notable and the article in question has an award nomination I was expressing my opinion that that award was not good enough. As for that arguement, based on the article you pointed to I would be leaning on the deletionist side. duffbeerforme (talk)

Bryce Retzlaff - thank you

Hi DBFM,
Thank you for the PROD nomination notice. I think you're right - no senior games so far - I'll let you know if I've found anything contra before I contest the PROD.
Go you Brizroy-boys! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again DBFM. Mate, I've had a little think about this. There are a whole lotta AFL squad templates that include players that are yet to play a senior game. This needs fixing. To that end, I've contested the WP:PROD and sent Bryce Retzlaff to AfD--Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll respond there. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Levi Casboult

Could you please direct me to the discussion where it was agreed upon that a rookie-listed player with no senior games is considered non-notable. Thanks Aspirex (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the WP:NSPORTS guideline, specifically the Australian rules football section players are notable when they have played a senior game. Casboult has not. There are other ways to be notable, Casboult satisfies none of those. (AFDs for players on the main list that haven't played sometimes survive for bad reasons, I have never seen that happen for rookie listed players). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Duffbeerforme, it is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Do you believe User:RolandR should be talked to? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have no interest in speaking with such (---) "people". I will try to work with these deluded (---) to improve Wikipedia. They should be allowed to have their say but reasonable people will out number them. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, let us not loose the hope. I realize your attention is positive and guess yeah, deluded should be thought of. 10x for the chat, Duffbeerforme. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

Stop editing the AVGN episodes article. It is fien the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.53.79 (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not fine the way it was. See Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How are people supposed to see the episodes? Dude. Get a life. It was fine the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.53.79 (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• They could try visiting his website. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletionists are hated. The bureaucrats here all sound so erudite and you revel in your foolish bureaucracy. Watch the movie "BRAZIL" - your insane bureaucracy could lead people to suicide! You people are the main reason nobody gives money to the Wikipedia foundation. I've talked with at 10 people who edit here and guess what, deletionists are HATED. Keep it up. Meanwhile clowns can game and deface articles, but you are worried about destroying information. Meanwhile every random thought about Star Wars and millions of links therein are documented here stretching notability and other standards to the maximum extreme, but you are obsessed with GT/YT links here. Try and get your oligarchical collectivist BARNSTAR by at least trying to do real work and not destroying information. The duffman is laid back , not a delitionist Nazi. The reason Godwin's Law rule applies so often is people are into police state oligarchies if they are in control of the said authoritarian regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickrussom (talk • contribs) 12:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Ok, i have conferred with User:5 albert square about this, submitting the conversation on Shkazor's talk page. We'll see how it turns out. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:00 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why you after my articles?

1) RedSpotGames: www.redspotgames.com I uploaded the companies logo, it was the right size for fair use. 2) Sturmwind: It is an upcoming Dreamcast game, how is it any less significant than any other Dreamcast game? 3) ngdevteam: German video game developer very high profile, google them. 4) Senile Team: another European developer, google them and their games.

So exactly what is up, are you even reading the articles your tagging? These are video games, developers and publishers and our as significant as any other person in this profession!--Cube b3 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

While it may look like I'm after your articles I'm actually targeting articles related to redspotgames (why are they all yours is another question). Articles about that company have been repeatedly posted despite not showing any real notability to such an extent to suggest promotional motives and have at their real name been protected to avoid recreation without discusion. The recreation by changing capitilisation to avoid the protection on the real name of the company suggests bad faith. The inclusion of an article on redspotgames in another article to avoid the protection reinforces that impression. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Articles I have nominated lack reliable source demonstrating their notability. And yes I did google each of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the other article was deleted but you can google the company. They are recognized by video game journalist such as G4, Kotaku, Joystiq just to name a few. They were even interviewed on a German television show.

Instead of removing content off wiki you should help getting the information right, if you think anything is an advert get it to the right encyclopedic level. You can check my contributions, I have been here for years and have created hundreds of articles here and the unfair deletion of anything is de-motivating. Please help me get the official name unbanned so I can redirect the page. If you would've googled it you would know how significant rsg really is.--Cube b3 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you provide good coverage of the company in independent reliable sources I am willing to help you create a draft of a new article in the user space (eg at (User talk:Cube b3/redspotgames). A good draft in user space can then be shown at WP:DRV to argue for the unprotection and creation of an article. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop being so annoying and stop expressing your hate for redspotgames. This company has now published 5 games. On Wikipedia, we have articles about video game companies that made only one game and we even have articles about unreleased video games. It was always you who asked for deletion of redspotgames. Nobody is getting bothered if this article remains on wikipeda.--Maturion (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

People like you are the reason why I pretty much left Wikipedia. Why bother adding good information if some prick is going to call it "not relevant" and delete it anyway? -- Stormwatch (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)