User talk:FiveIron
I am not advertising about the Little Lion Man cover. Lots of music artist wikipages include people that have covered their songs. Its not advertising. I read the advertising guidelines, and providing information on who else covered this song doesnt fit as advertising. This is an encyclopedic page on a song...silly to leave out information. If others record a cover version, that should be included as well. D.C.Roth 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No...I have nothing to do with the band. I have heard it on the radio a few times now though. Look through wikipedia for many precedents already set. No need for a discussion. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball_wizard . Lots of cover versions listed. Not advertising, information. I mean no disrespect, but I am putting the cover version information back up. I must ask...are you showing bias because you dont like the cover version? Feel free to add other cover versions as they arise.D.C.Roth 22:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Examples of how Wikipedia handles Cover Versions of songs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_Yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball_wizard
I will establish a Cover Versions section like these two examples at a later date. Thank you. :-)
Wow...Not sure why you are on a one-man mission to rid that page of cover versions. I was polite, I even followed YOUR advice ("if you want to create a cover section, create a section") and created the Covers Section. Why the one-sided bias towards me? Surely Wikipedia has a policy against such heavy-handedness. Goodness. How do I view this "talk" section that you claim I "refused" to establish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.c.roth (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok dude...keep your watch. I didnt initially know where this talk page was that was created. Goodness. You act like a crime was committed here. I looked through the various categories that you feel are violated....Real shaky ground, my friend. I found several items on the LLM page that could also possibly be in violation of these vagueries. Am I going to make a federal case out of it? Nope. I am done arguing with you though. I did what you recommended I do, and you still removed the section as if this FiveIronpedia. Even your wording on this talk page you created is worded in a biased fashion. Sorry...but a bit of self-awareness, etiquette and tact may serve you better than this heavy-handedness. D.c.roth (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Name-Calling? LOL. Sorry....you have no examples on my end for that. I have been nothing but civil to you. And I never said that you were "offended". Your actions and tone convey it though. If you wanted to have a discussion, you could have had one. LOL. Conversations often work better than commands. Just recommending you take my advice on how to treat others. This is not your court. Not everyone knows every in & out on wikipedia, and it is foolish to think otherwise. If you feel the need ot enforce "guidelines", don't assume that the other party knows every detail you are aware of. I also strongly recommend you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_personal_attacks . Self-awareness. So I will be taking wikipedia's advice, hope you do the same. Calm down, and have a good night, my friend. And no need for any more replies.D.c.roth (talk
Well, you finally said one thing that was correct...You dont know about me. The cover is important to me only in that it is gaining airplay in significant markets and deserves to be mentioned. What is clearly important to you is that it will not get mentioned with your overzealous deletion. It is important to assume good faith in the contributor and not to rush to "get rid" of someone else's writing. Even if it does not follow your own interests, it was written by someone for a good reason. And you obviously feel that your heavy-handed tone and behavior here is acceptable, so you have chosen to ignore my advice on re-visiting wiki's etiquette. No worries, friend. You certainly have gotten me to dig deeper into wikipedia's details (Thank you for that, btw...but did it have to come at the expense of your demeaning and policing tone? Guess you felt it did), and have learned that you are clearly in violation of many of Wiki's own stances on dealing with fellow users. You will obviously disagree. Have a great night! :-) D.c.roth (talk
lol. I am not one to "report" anyone. Not my style. You try and police others, but you cant police yourself? You continue to think I am "promoting", when all I am doing is informing. You disagree, and with your overzealous deletion you made it your mission to be sure it isnt included. Just quoting wikipedia here: "It is important to assume good faith in the contributor and not to rush to "get rid" of someone else's writing. Even if it does not follow your own interests, it was written by someone for a good reason." As wiki's guidelines point out, you seem to be one that just wants to "win". I agree with wiki. You can disagree over how you violated various wiki etiquette guidelines, doesnt mean you didnt violate them. Besides, do you really need guidelines for proper ways of dealing with folks? Maybe your past experiences have jaded you. Congrats on making a mountain over a molehill. Again...self awareness, my friend. No need to respond further. Have a great night. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.c.roth (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Motor City Ska has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not Notable article. Administrators may have a look.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)