User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 5

Allele AfD

Hi Duffbeerforme!

I noticed that you nominated the Allele (band) at AfD. I would suggest you added Point of Origin (Allele album), Next to Parallel, and Allele discography into that AfD as well, as none of those are nominated and all are relevant. Regards, Lukeno94 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Or I can keep the afd simple and tag those articles for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Finished With My Ex's Untitled Forthcoming Album

A9 is only for albums where the artist is redlinked. This is a clear AFD candidate though, so I sent it there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sand Castles

I am the an Executive of Oceanus Pictures which owns Sand Castles: A Story of Family and Tragedy you brought this up for deletion from a mis-understanding. When an independent film is made there is no solid release dates as it's all dependent on the film festival it goes too. For example if we go to the Toronto Film Festival, then it will be late 2013, if we go to Sundance it will be early 2014. We have made changes to the actors pages. If you would like to see a private trailer of the film for you to cancel this report? Also we have not put it on Indie Wire, or any major publication on purpose. That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now. Thank you. (KonstantineUO (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As an executive of that company you should have a read of WP:COI. What mis-understanding? That this is meant as an advert, no mis-understanding, I saw that it was. The exact release date is not important, it's a future film lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. A trailer will make no difference to my nomination, this article is spam wether I see a trailer or not. "That is part of a marketing game plan." There's the problem. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your film. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sinitus Tempo AfD

Thanks for giving your opinion on the Sinitus AfD. I notice the proposal has now been relisted as not enough contributors gave a verdict. Other than my proposal, there was only one clear opinion, which was yours. I'm not sure the best way to attract more accurate thinking contributors to this AfD. But perhaps you could share the link if you know of other contributors that would like to give their perspective on this type of proposal. Cheers 64Winters (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just leave it be for now. One relisting is not uncommon. The relisting (and or the listing in the Bands AFD listing) may attract more comments. Leave it for the next week. If nothing comes of it we can start from scratch after the closing of the afd. Second AFDs appear to attract more attention and given how terribly crufty and unsourced this article is it's more than likely to result in deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Artpop & SPI

Thanks for your note. I have replied about both issues on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, for future reference, if and when you create SPIs again, you need to give the username as just, for example, "Duphbeerforme" rather than "User:Duphbeerforme", as otherwise the links don't work. I have corrected it this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, appears I stuffed up there. I'd left it out on the title page, didn't know I needed to in the details. Done the same earlier. I might need to suggest a change in the instructions. Aside from all that, a huge thanks for all your efforts. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Confused. Looks like my last SPI i left out User. I'm guessing I looked better at preview cause it was less of a duck. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Still a loud quack. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Liana Cornell

Hi. Where are you seeing "Like her mum before her, Liana is a model and actress" in here? --John (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Womans Day reference (as requested here. The one about which User:GFHandel called me a liar and decided to remove sourced info, to reduce the verifiabilty, remove valid sources and to go back to the prefered version of an editor who repeatedly removed sourced info claiming there was no source for it (see [1] where they were informed). Sorry, can't provide a link but if you have access to Factiva you can see it. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. We have to be especially careful on articles on living people so I removed the disputed data pending a verifiable source being found. --John (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We have two verifiable references for it. One very easily seen by following the link in the article [2]. The other by going to Factiva or going into a major Australian library. Articles do not need to be easily found online to be verifiable. Please read through WP:V. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD not a talk page

Hi, I would just like to say that I have seen your combative comment on the AfD, in the future if you have something to tell me then do it at my talk page. Because AfDs are not talk pages. Your "!vote" were not a speedy keep-!vote it was a comment.. a comment on me. And why do you assume bad faith? Assuming bad faith in that case is in itself bad faith. I have nothing further to add then if you have a personal vendetta or some emotions that you need to get out of your system then do it at my talk page. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Geoff Sizer page

Hi duffbeerforme,

I refer to the deletion discussion relating to a page I recently wrote, that was titled "Geoff Sizer".

You can find the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoff_Sizer

I refer to your comment: "Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources."

I would like to contend that this comment or assessment is inaccurate. There were 14 or so references on the page, one of which was the "Engineers Australia" organisation.

Engineers Australia is the peak engineering body in Australia, of which Mr Sizer is a fellow and board memeber - quite a credible reference.

In addition to this, all the other references clearly show the article subject's name - ie they are relevant and accurate. The subject is a significant figure in the Australian Engineering "society" and I expect this page to grow and grow over time, as I have only created a critical mass type of page initially. To give an example of another future section, the subject has been involved in developing early radio location techniques (the ones now used in GPS) to track and locate crocodiles, for scientific research - this then became a commercial venture and source of great employment. Perhaps this would be more interesting subject matter for the page.

Please have another look at it and see what you think.

Please comment?

Cheers, Jon Eggins Whirly bits (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Showing his name is not non trivial coverage about him. Engineers Australia is not an independent reliable source. If he is so significant where is the independent coverage that verifies that? The number of references is not that important, it's the quality of them. I can't see them now as the article has been deleted but if I remember right none provided any depth of coverage ABOUT HIM and not all where reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You should also note that WIkipedia is not here for you to promote your CEO. See WP:COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you have about another 539,958 wikipedia articles you better delete then. You do realise that you made a massive assumption - that I am trying to promote a person because of his work role, and not because of his value as a person? Whirly bits (talk)

Proposed deletion of California Clam Chowder

The article California Clam Chowder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks evidence that it is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE HARRASMENT!

I've notified wiki admin about your harrasment. Your "sockpuppet" claim is foul! Wiki isn't a place for your personal views and attacks. Causeandedit (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The best place to report bad behaviour is probably at WP:ANI. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pon de Replay. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. For removal of content without justification and edit .  — AARON • ^TALK 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What edit do you considern unconstructive? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the references, of "shop links" as you called them, and for edit warring.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My behavuoir was wrong but your mischaractisaion of my edits as vandalism is an inapropriate personasal attack. TBA. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

thosec "shop links" are not independent reliable sources regardless of how you pretend oterwise. I reverted an edit by causeandedit who is dedicated to prompoting johnathan Hay related subjects. see Wikipedia:Ani#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani amongst others. Insert apololgy here. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't pretend thoose shop links are accepatble. Wikipedia is not here to advertise businesses. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pon de Replay, you may be blocked from editing. Removing reliable sources for no justifiable reason, mass removal of content and therefore placing unsourced information into article.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please cut the crap. Go straight to reporting me., duffbeerforme (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pon de Replay, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Look, the references are absolutely fine. They got through the GA review, they can't be that bad. Mdann52 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pon de Replay. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Duffbeerforme, could you take a look and explain what you were doing with this edit? It's marked minor and labeled as "sp", but your post was not modified at all; the only change is removing the post of someone that had replied to you. As you probably know, refactoring or otherwise modifying other people's comments, especially at a place like ANI, is a bad thing, and removing them outright is even worse. Mistakes happen, of course, and edit conflicts have been known to wipe out other people's additions, but the complete lack of any changes in the edit other than the removal has me wondering. Thanks, Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I think I see what happened. Sorry about that! Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, the AN/I discussion you started has appropriately been closed. I would suggest that from now on you follow the appropriate protocol for discussing a content dispute rather than getting into an edit war and ignoring numerous warnings, and then trying to get support by going to AN/I instead of attempting to discuss it on the article's talk page to achieve consensus. I think that you're very lucky you weren't blocked for all of your inappropriate actions. It doesn't matter one bit whether you're right or wrong on the content issue because your behavior in handling the dispute was very inappropriate. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Block-evading sock"

Hello, do you have any idea who this user is a sockpuppet of? Graham87 03:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Modelsplus. My description of them as a block evading sock was fundamentally flawed. Whilst original account is blocked it was just for their name. They have the right to continue. Would be best if they chose a new name but block evasion should not have been said and it does not really qualify as a sock. My poor recollection of circumstances at that time led to my bad edit summary. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I ended up blocking them anyway for general dickery. Perhaps not my finest moment, but I'm not really inclined to unblock without a suitable request from them. Graham87 08:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Another clarification, The edits I reverted where by 101.165.1.89, not by ROXETTE88. They appear unrelated to your block and unrelated to the disruption caused by ROXETTE88. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Argh, I should have checked the diffs more closely. But both editrs seem to have a bizarre fascination with categories, and they've both touched the same rather specialised article, so ... who knows? Graham87 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My main concern, 101. and Modelsplus have an unfortunate tendency to add unsourced (and false (at least some times)) Glamour Model cats to BLPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this Wikipedia article?

Hello,

I have noticed that you have shown considerable interest in having the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article deleted from Wikipedia. Since I must assume good faith on your part, I deduce that far from having something personal against the twins, you simply want Wikipedia to be what it is supposed to be. The irony is that the user who proposed the deletion of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article seems to have created and contributed to an article that outrageously violates Wikipedia guidelines, called DocumentCloud. This article has NO third-party sources and it simply promotes a product. Notice that in that article, "DocumentCloud", "Investigative Reporters & Editors" (IRE), and "Knight Foundation" are completely connected. You will see that the six sources provided in the article quote either the founders of DocumentCloud (Eric Umansky, Scott Klein and Aron Pilhofer), or the Executive Director of IRE (Mark Horvit), or "the DocumentCloud team", without specifying a name. Two other sources come from the official website of the Knight Foundation, so that's not independent, obviously. Plus look at the dates on the sources. This article uses Wikipedia for promotional purposes and made no effort at all to provide independent third-party sources. I should be deleted according to Wikipedia:Third-party_sources. This article definitely does not belong in Wikipedia. You have more experience here, but I think you'll agree. Dontreader (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That article does have issues but the Observer looks independent. I might look closer later. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The Observer basically uses statements made by one of the creators of DocumentCloud (Aron Pilhofer) to claim how wonderful DocumentCloud will become in the future. Therefore, even if the independence of that source can be determined, the actual content of that article is not independent. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: RecycleBot

Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of RecycleBot, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not spammy enough for G11. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

John Christian Hopkins deletion

Hello, I noticed that you proposed my article on author, journalist and poet John Christian Hopkins be deleted. I have to respectfully disagree with you, as he is a very notable Native American writer. This was the second time my page has been attempted to be deleted for notability reasons, although it would be a disservice to Hopkins and his readership for that to be the case. I removed the proposed deletion, as this was a class project for my college American Indian Literature class. We have spent a very long time researching and constructing his page. I hope you understand.Othomas39 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to an afd to get more eyes on it. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Christian Hopkins if you want to argue against deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

You recently proposed the Wiki article on EDUBB for speedy deletion AND you edited the spelling of their name which is copyrighted and trademarked in all caps "EDUBB." Also, the only basis for your speedy deletion request was because a previous version of the page had been deleted. It is my understanding that if reliable secondary references can be provided to substantiate the notability of a person living or band, that will suffice as evidence that the article has a place on wikipedia. It appears you simply glanced at the article and did not conduct any due diligence of your own when recommending the article for deletion. This group has major media coverage, created and trademarked a new term in the English language which is evidenced by more than 1 million items returned via Google search as well as being linked to several wiki pages. I am trying to ensure I do not bring down the wiki brand but feel that you may have misjudged this particular article. Several other editors have viewed and contributed to the article with no recommendations for deletion. I would like to understand your reason if you don't mind...that way I can avoid creating sub-standard pages or violating any rules. I DID undo your change for the spelling of their name because as stated above, their name is Trademarked and Copyrighted and we have no right to change it to something else. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources is the key here. That was lacking. The previous public discusion on the merits of the band found the coverage lacking. Nothing of note was different in your new article. Those several editors may not have been aware of the previous history and the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edubb. They may have also not looked cklosely at the content. Re the "spelling" which I didn't change, Wikipedia generaly should use standard English conventions for article titles for trademarks and not stick to companies prefered format. Standard English conventions are that the first letter is capitalised and the rest are lower. I only changed the article title and left all other instances in the article intact. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BlackMask

Oh - still, I think AfD would be ideal as there is potential notability here and a debate would be worthwhile. GiantSnowman 09:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirty Socks

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vorspire

PeterWesco (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch very closely who comes out of the woodwork. It should be very interesting: [3]

"Sock Puppet?"

May I please know why my handle is on this list? I looked up what the term means, and that's not true in my case at all. Please elaborate? Thank you. SlowFatKid (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are a sockpuppet for AnotherGenericUser and it is fairly clear which IP editor you are. Between the IP, AnotherGenericUser, SlowFatKid, etc. edits it is fairly clear that you are the same person. Compare these edits: SlowFatKid and AnotherGenericUser PeterWesco (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Aedas

Hello, Duffbeerforme. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.
Message added 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I see you removed all my addiitions to the Aedas page, and I'm curious as to why. They are *the* top architectural firm in the world, as I showed with my links. And their page mirrors this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox. I added lists of notable buildings. I could understand if this were a start up company that has achieved nothing, but Aedas has been around for 10 years and, again, is at the top of their profession. Please reconsider and restore the page. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've added a bunch of unsourced minor awards, unsourced offices and unsourcesd "selected" projects. All just make it look like an advert. As do many of your other edits to other subjects. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Addressed some of your concerns.

Hello mate, I have addressed many of your concerns of nobility on the Jordon Hodges page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Hodges -- I agreed with your initial concerns, but I believe I have found many suitable references and points made. (I have actually found a gold mine of stuff I can add to Wikipedia in the near future relating to various film titles in the filmography) The original creator of the page just frankly, did a poor job. I am new to Wikipedia, so excuse me if not all of my language / code / format is perfect. Thank you Vorspire (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2013 (EST)

Yep, that original creator was you. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Plastics extrusion

I noticed you removed a reference from Plastics extrusion, with the comment "rem selfpromotional stuff". The reference was to an article written by university professors and published in a professional journal, and ought to be a reliable source. The reference, along with statements it supports were apparently added by Batboys in this edit: [[4]]

Although you removed the reference, you left in the statements it supported.

I can't quite understand why the reference is self promotional. Is Batboys one of the authors? I did notice that the same reference was left in RepRap Project. Should that be removed also? It looks to me like the RepRap article contains a lot more junk (some of which you removed) that does not belong in Wikipedia.

I appreciate you reviewing and improving these articles. You probably know some things that I am not aware of. I would appreciate you sharing with me your experience and insight into these articles.

Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Batboys = Recyclebotboy is a SPA dedicated to introducing research by the team behind RecycleBot, throwing in random links to his now deleted page on RecycleBot and linking to research done by the team behind it. What we leave in and what we remove from such promotional editors can tread a very fine line. What I did and did not do at that time is in part based on that. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I learned a lot today, thanks to you. I learned what an SPA is. I see that Batboys has been consuming a lot of editor's time—not just yours. I put the doi for the reference I asked you about into the wikipedia search box, and I got four hits, even after you removed some. I greatly appreciate the time you have donated to wikipedia, and for helping a much less experienced person like me.Wikfr (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Devin Neil Oatway

PLEASE REMOVE DELETION TAG NOW. You know nothing about this. The article needs help, not deletion. Please stop harassing me and my reputation. You are messing with people's lives here and I do not assume it is in good conscience. Please remove deletion citations from pages I'm working on, and waiting for others who are interested in the subject to do so as well. Please stay away from me and my articles. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudavagling (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gudavagling, you are very close to being blocked for your behavior. Allow me to list the policies you've violated so far:

1. No autobiographies. You should not be writing about yourself in the first place. You're not the best judge of your own notability.
2. No personal attacks. You've made baseless accusations of another editor engaging in malicious editing. Just because they've done something you don't like doesn't mean it's a personal attack against you.
3. No ownership of articles. You do not have the right to act as if you own articles and their content. Anyone is permitted to edit them as long as they follow the rules.

I strongly suggest you stop thinking that you're a helpless victim, review these additional links and listen to the community.

• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia is not about YOU
• An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• Bare notability
• No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
• Masking the lack of notability

--Drm310 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been deleted and started a new account, but only to learn. I'm going to let the people who are more familiar with wikipedia decide the fate of the articles assigned for deletion. I apologize for my behavior and lack of civility and promise it won't happen again. I understand that you are a steward of Wikipedia and must take that seriously. For now, I'm here to learn. I will not contribute to anything to do with an article about me unless it violates Wikipedia policy. As for Ojai Studio Artists, I would have rather some editor explain to me how such a renowned artist group would not be an acceptable article for Wikipedia. I do plan on attempting another article about this group. I am going to the museum today where their archives are kept, so that I can cite valid third party articles. If you come across any articles I work on in the future, try to be more kind. I'm not trying to build walled gardens, as you put it. In the case of OSA, I am attempting to make it possible for people to read about the group and its history. Sorry to be so verbose. Cheers. ojaistudioartist (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercy Arms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Editors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsen Records

I've revised the decision to no consensus. LFaraone 17:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you so much for reverting the edits made on the Roses Are Red page. It's been a constant battle for me trying to undo what that IP user is doing, not to mention his lawyer's threats. Funny enough, it's actually one of the former members trying to eradicate his connection with the group. Either way, thanks. Hsxeric (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Magic Portal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Magic Portal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Portal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Category removal

Please stop When making an album article into a redirect (e.g.), please add {{r from album}} and retain the categories. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Special When Lit (album)

There is nothing wrong with including links to related content (including video or audio) in the external links section, and Template:Infobox single even allows you to include a link to a video in the main part of the article such as here: Smells Like Teen Spirit. memphisto 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That template allows for one single link to the video of the song that is the subject of the article in question. Not to flood an article with fourteen links to media rich pages that form almost half the article. It isn't there to provide ten links to the one website. It also does not in anyway make shops independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mike Sabath may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Sabath is the younger brother in his family. At 18 months old, Sabath was given a lollipop drum] from his parents, springing his musicality at an early age. In 2001, Sabath appeared in a "One

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Declined PROD

Hey Duff, I had to remove the PROD on The Abandoned State since it had been PRODed back in 2012. I wish that we could re-PROD an article if it's been a year since the last PROD, but oh well. In any case I opened the AfD here, if you're interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: The Plague (English band)

Hello Duffbeerforme, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Plague (English band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G7 only applies when the author of the article is also the author of the only substantial content. Article history in this case indicates otherwise. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Birds

I've open a new discussion here. Maybe we can reach a consensus there without jumping to conclusions Zoozle102 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling Discography section

Please, if you have a problem with iTunes links that take you to the music made available for purchase by Camille and Kennerly Kitt but intended to support the discography section, then why don't you have a problem with this link in the discography section of Lindsey Stirling? http://lindseystirling.mybigcommerce.com/music-singles-1/ Please explain why one link complies with Wikipedia rules, and the other one does not. I'm asking you politely. Dontreader (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hadn't seen that page so I thought nothing of it. There is a lot of pages on Wikipedia, I haven't seen them all. Having bad stuff elsewhere doesn't make it right on the Kitt page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read the continuation of the discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#May_I_use_these_links_in_the_discography_section_of_an_article_of_a_musician.3F

Will you insist on reverting iTunes links even if I don't include the word "iTunes" (or any other similar sites) in the article? I'm trying to reach consensus with you. You said you were there to improve the article, and I'm supposed to assume good faith. Dontreader (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's a links to a store selling product then I may. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Phase Eight

Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Phase Eight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  12:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your comments

Some of them were wrong though gotta be careful this thing records everything! Anyway some of those citation mark thingies are wrong as well but anyway I'm staying out of it if that's what you want. Recent is the user that went over the whole thing before I added the TNS thing and changed the tv show details when frank told me it was wrong. Please try to know all the relevant facts before stating on a case. I aFD'ed the thing twice myself with I think a third one besides yours yesterday. It's still here. Anyway thanks and rock on if you need help on that Dennis Donaghy page I can clarify and Reliably Verify all or most facts that would appear on such a page as it is me. I was no less valuable in BSS who should stay on the Wikipedia as current guidelines stand and nowhere does it say for how long or what happens if there's several) that means more than two) bands in play. I am assuming (might make me an ass) that such a case would only be stronger as more bands are fully 'membered'. ~~ (not correctly singed, but not a sockpuppet or whatever either... I did it by accident, sorry) Phaedrx (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Witchhunt

Why are you trying to rid Wikipedia of the following pages: Dennis Donaghy , Blanket Statementstein, Dirt Bike Annie. What is possessing you? Helping the wikipedia? What is your honest sincere motivation sir or ma'am? I have zero affiliation with either of those bands since 2007 and 1996 respectively. They should stay and not be witchunted cuz of my what yer callin a 'vanity' page which is not cuz er confused but who cares at this point, alls i wanna know is how does someone come out of the woodwork after weeks and weeks of nothing, to tag and afd all these pages? I just would like to see what your logic is, it might amuse me Phaedrx (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiya

Have you seen the Great Wall of Text that got aimed at me on the AFD[5] and the personal insults he added to the personal website?[6] Any help in that regard will be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Final warning

I'm writing the same message to both of you. I am sick and tired of both of you acting like five-year old kids on Camille and Kennerly Kitt.

This is the last civility warning I issue. The next time blocks will happen.

Dontreader. Forget about this article. You are too wrapped up by Duff's actions. Let it go. Don't edit, write or talk about the article. Take it off of your watchlist. Move on. Duff is provoking you, just don't take bait. You've taken the bait in the past and said some not-so-nice things. If you see something that needs to be changed or Duff makes an edit, DONT DO ANYTHING. Just report it to me.

Duffbeerforme. I've asked you to stay away to de-escalate the situation. You said no because I can't make you. You've made all of 50 edits all of this month. You just had to make minor edit to Kitt's page. Then you say on the talk page, "It appears my changes were reverted not because they were wrong or misleading but because I made them and someone else owns this shrine." You then follow Dont to other pages. Nothing says prodding more than that. You stay away from Kitt's article and Dont. By doing so, you are doing purely to provoke and prod Dont. If you see something that needs to be changed or Dont makes an edit, DONT DO ANYTHING. Just report it to me.

From WP:Civility on what constitutes an uncivil act, "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken." Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm tired of you mischaracterising my actions and pandering to Dontreader.

Your proposal rewards his ownership issues, his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach, his attack on Tokyogirl79 and his campaign of slander against me.

I stayed away from that page after the AFD for over four months to let the situation to de-escalate but Dontreader just got worse ("consult with the main contributors to this page before changing the format of the references section.") When I returned He started venue shopping and attacking me for having the temerity to dare touch the page. So I moved to the talk page and then stepped away for a month. I returned with minor edits to see if Dontreader would be reasonable, no such luck. He just went venue shopping and rubbishing me. And when he got an answer that he didn't like He just had a go at Lesser Cartographies, continued rubbishing me and ignored advice given. So I moved to the talk page (BTW it's nice to see while others are talking you just ignore that and jump in and impose you own personal opinion on the page against consensus). Nothing was designed to bait him.

I looked at what Dontreader was doing because from notifications I saw that he was talking shit about me again and saw him venue shopping again. With his history of abuse it is reasonable for me to watch what he is doing.

The lesson I'm getting from you is if you don't like someone and want to get them banned then just run around rubbishing them, causing trouble and then they will get in trouble.

I'll try report issues with the Harp Twins page to you, let's see if you ignore this one too. The page is still a fan page. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every little performance. So what if they performed at a little book launch. No independent reliable sources reported on it. So what if they played at a private party. The closest we have to a good source is a passing mention in a society column. So what if they played at "events featuring US Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Former First Lady Laura Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney" Once again, no independent sourcing and the wording is change to "for" (original research, no indication from the source they performed for them, just at the same event). So what if they appeared in a commercial, no independent sourcing. Why are so many blogs featuring heavily in this BLP. Why the particular cherry picked quotes used. Looking at HuffPo article [7]. It's central premise is that it's a "weird sex trope", is the "oddest, most sensual version". The quote used on the page is picked out of context as the most flattering line. Should this lightweight blog post be used at all? (It's not redundant to say Hufffington and blogger as most people have no idea what HuffPo is, it's name suggests to me a newspaper. Yes we and many editors know what it is but the average Wikipedia reader does not, and that's who articles are written for, not for editors.) The page has been changed to say "The Harp Twins’ have posted 45 music videos on YouTube currently totalling over 11 million views". That's not what's in the source. The page says "received particularly significant worldwide media attention". Peacock terms. Who says it's particularly significant? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme, do I have your permission to take the above, reformat it as a bulleted list, put it on the article talk page and start working from it? I'll be proposing each change I'd like to make on the talk page of the article before it goes live. Bgwhite, do you want to make the actual edits or are you ok with just looking over my shoulder? Dontreader, you can make a list as well, but keep it on your talk page and ping me (and Bgwhite) about it. If anyone wants to veto this, let's hear about it now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have my permission. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait for Bgwhite's signoff. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like a very good idea. Lesser Cartographies, I have no objection to you making any edits. Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the crux of the problems coming up yet again. Major ownership which you have helped enable. A preciousness about his “well-crafted sentences”. Lesser dares have an opinion that falls outside Dontreader's world view then Lesser must be banned from editing the page. Anything that Don doesn't like is considered causing trouble. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded and reformatted your list; it's now on the article talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Presented as it is strips it of the reasons they may be issues (the first reply demonstrates this). Was that an unintended consequence or are you thinking I should provide comments for each? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to provide comments. In most cases I think I understand which policies you'd be citing, so you may want to hold off until I've come up with my justification for accepting or rejecting a particular suggestion. If I've missed something, or if you think I've misinterpreted a policy, that would be a great time to jump in. In short: you're not expected to provide justifications, but you're welcome to do so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I see what I was missing. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: There are now 15 suggestions/queries on the list. If you have a good sense which of the cites are blogs, let me know here. Otherwise I'll go through and look at all of them. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Warky T.Chocobo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Warky T.Chocobo. 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. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Kitt article

There are several areas (references, film list) that need some serious attention, but beyond that I think things are shaping up nicely. Thanks for your detailed comments. I've responded to each. Thanks in particular for pushing me to look at the TV cites. As so as I realized there wasn't anything original there, my biggest problem was immediately moot.

Other comments are welcome, particularly what to with the film section.

Oh, and the Kitt twins played for a dinner at which the president spoke. Which might mean they weren't even in the building at the same time. I thought about keeping it in regardless, but I couldn't figure out how to say that without it sticking out obtrusively.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's a massive improvement on the disaster that was there. Thing are moving along well. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nebulae (band)

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

St Peter's old boys

Hi, Don't you think your campaign of deletions is a bit vindictive? It is hard to respond in a considered fashion to so many nominations. Would it be possible to withdraw the nominations and make them gradually so that a more considered approach can be taken? Do you think any account should be taken of of the feelings of the subjects? Rick570 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing vindictive. I won't be withdrawing any and I will be continuing nominating. You have experience with deletions before so you should be aware of notability guidlines. You should be able to make a considered case for notability before creating any article, not waiting until after it's been nominated. That you've chosen to abuse Wikipedia doesn't stand in your favour, your misuse won't make me cater to your timetable. Yes I think the subjects feelings should have been taken into account before creating any of these articles. You put them out there. Having a Wikipedia article can have pitfalls. I can think of one former magistrate who would probably be happier if you never made an article on him. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you thought of prodding them rather than taking them to AfD? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC).

Some I think should not have been prodded, they were potentially controversial. All the Prof ones also as I'm not as sure about WP:Prof. The others because I thought any prods would removed without any real improvement as I'd seen done. Plus public afds help show the problems here. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it also creates more work for the people who contribute to AfDs. If anybody really wants to keep an article (and most of the ones we are dealing with here have been pretty uninteresting) all they have to do is remove the prod. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC).

User:Rick570/B Matt

Why have you reverted my CSD decline? The discussion you referenced is ongoing, and the one "keep" specifically addressed that copy of the former article. Dlohcierekim 07:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC) The AfD you referenced in your retagging is not germaine. Users are allowed to userfy deleted articles. As you should know if you read the previously referenced MfD, the matter is still under discussion with a "keep" specifically addressing this version. Thanks Dlohcierekim 07:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert your decline, I changed it to a different CSD. That one keep does not address this new copy. This new one was created after the nomination of the other two to circumvent the MFD. The version referred to is User:Rick570/Richard J H Matthews. The afd is germaine. The deleted article was properly userfied to User:Msrasnw/Richard J H Matthews and copied to User:Rick570/Richard J H Matthews in 2010. The MFD is dealing them. This new version is not a properly userfied copy and was a bad faithed move to avoid community consensus, renamed to B Matt to avoid scrutiny. Rick570 now has 4 articles on the one person in his user space, User:Rick570/B Matt, User:Rick570/Richard J H Matthews, User:Rick570/Richard Matthews, User:Rick570/R Matthews. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'd said that sooner . . . Dlohcierekim 08:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See the comment I left after the csd in the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Have let the MfDers know there are 4. As the MfD remains open, they can sort them. Dlohcierekim 08:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tagged 'em. Dlohcierekim 08:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Stages & Stereos

Your edits on the article of deletion for Stages & Stereos are pedantic and unnecessary. You placing a notice on my talk page of creating an attack page is offensive and untrue. Please revert the edit and start acting like a civil member of Wikipedia. Reading through your Talk page tells me that I am not alone in having an issue with the way you conduct yourself here. I would hate to have to escalate this. Thank you. --NArca9 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On the Stages & Stereos afd, my reply to your misinformation may have been unnecessary (the article probably would have been deleted without it) but there was nothing uncivil about my reply, unlike your own comment. On the attack page, I saw what I thought was an attack page and tagged it as such. I placed a note on your talk page as suggested by the speedy delete notice. An admin looked at the page, agreed with me and speedy deleted it as an attack page. I did the right thing. I will not revert my edit and I will not apologise. Feel free to escalate as much as you want. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 7#The Sammus Theory and others. 213.144.224.123 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian Blacktop

In just a few clicks, I found lots of sources to add as references. I don't have time to make it a good article, but it's not half bad now. I removed your proposed deletion tag. He clearly passes my standards for lawyers. I think he'd pass if this were WP:AfD, per WP:HEY. Yes, he's one of the bad old good old boys, but he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)