User talk:Adjective Noun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability of Does It Offend You, Yeah?

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Does It Offend You, Yeah?, by Precious Roy (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Does It Offend You, Yeah? seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Does It Offend You, Yeah?, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

DIOY,Y article deletion,
The tags where there... >>>under consruction<<
Was it in one day where i wasnt adding to the arctile, you swiftly deleted it in? "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days."
nice. Adjective Noun 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that. It had actually been at least few days since your last edit. Cheers. Precious Roy 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ouch tree days [1]
moderating is truly srs bsns Adjective Noun 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No joke. Especially when there are soooo many articles about non-notable bands, right? Don't worry, I'm sure they'll make it some day. Cheers! Precious Roy 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Check your facts Adjective Noun 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Which facts were those? There were no claims of notability in the article, otherwise an admin wouldn't've deleted it. I see an up-and-coming band who is signed to a major label. Until they have a hit, or release two albums on a major (or pass one of the other criteria at WP:BAND), they're just not notable. I'm sure they probably will be one day.Precious Roy 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to remedy that today with a few points "pass" the critera but alas had no chance to do befroe the page was hit with banhammer.

Notice how bands lower down on the setlist have wiki pages, yet DIOYY do not. I was mearly trying to provide a stub with basic info for other user to expand on. Adjective Noun 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Mistake, the bottom most band on the dance arena The Teenagers[[8]]. Thats a poor coding link to a diffrnet band of the same name. Adjective Noun 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Other than the tour, none of that meets the criteria in WP:BAND. Getting played on a couple of stations is not the same as being "placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". And the tour criterion is "a national concert tour… reported in reliable sources"—I don't recall any references for the tours (forgive me if I'm mistaken). Seriously, it's all about meeting one of the criteria in WP:BAND and having verifiable references from reliable sources. That's it. Precious Roy 21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Semi fair enough, mainly due to WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and some other guidelines i read but cant find now.
Seems im not the only one less than impressed by your attitude to moderating thou (Above) Adjective Noun 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Cries. Precious Roy 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Further example of your high quality mature mod-ship Adjective Noun 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
First off: I'm not a mod. Secondly: up until now I have been quite civil and patient with you; I've explained why I put a speedy delete tag on the article, and even detailed ways you could ensure future articles of yours would not be deleted. Still, you keep posting and posting and posting on my talk page. Are you trying to convince me that I shouldn't have tagged the article? I can't imagine why else you'd continue to leave me notes. You're not asking questions any more and my patience has worn thin. I don't care if you are "impressed by my attitude". Try the Customer Complaint Department if you don't like my editing. Precious Roy 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Before the above post, you where acted in a cocky and self rightous fashion, so no before that you where not being civil (as noted by anothr user above). Secondly i will not be writing any more aricles mainly thanks to this type of responce. I now see no real beflief in in wikipedia as a whole and in other examples. Finally where abouts can i contact the "Customer Complaint Department"? Adjective Noun 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, we're not talking about my interactions with other editors, we're talking about you and me. If you'll look over our discussion, you might see things in a different light. You end your first post with a sarcastic "nice", your second post sarcastically implies that I take editing Wikipedia too seriously. Then you start in trying to convince my why I shouldn't have tagged your article for deletion, when it was already gone and there was not point in your doing so. By my third post I was trying to help you see why it was deleted; yet you persisted in giving me more "facts" (most, if not all, of which were not in the article that was deleted). After I spend all this time responding to your queries, you tell me how you are "less than impressed by [my] attitude". Then and only then did I get sarcastic. To top it all off, I think you might even still think that I'm the one who deleted your article—I didn't, an admin did. I don't think, however, that you should let this incident (and the others you alluded to) dissuade you from editing here. Try and learn from it. What's the point of editing Encyclopedia Dramatica, anyway? For the lulz? Seriously. Don't go away mad. Anyway, cheers and good luck. Precious Roy 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:DIOYYlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:DIOYYlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Klaxons Gravitys Rainbow Cover.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Klaxons Gravitys Rainbow Cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)