User talk:Neon white/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive1

Contents

Bis (Scottish band)

A tag has been placed on Bis (Scottish band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Bis (Scottish band). An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material. Adam Riley Talk 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nokia's old "Connecting People" font

It is Times Roman. There's no official word from Nokia that they used Times Roman, companies never do that. But, if you have Word or other word processing or graphics software, you can test it yourself.

First, see this screenshot I just made: [1]. Now, compare it to the Nokia logo: [2]

I used font Times New Roman, because I don't have Times Roman on my Windows system. Now, the large C and P are written using font size 48, while the rest of the letters use font size 36 — all letters are written using capital letters.

Yes, you can see some negligible differences between the two, like the "P" letter which is slightly different from the logo. However, didn't I say I used TIMES NEW ROMAN. If you look at the Times Roman article, it says there are some minor stylistic differences between the two. As I said, the old Nokia logo uses Times Roman, and here's a screenshot of a Times Roman printout, where there's a 100% identical P (and the rest of the letters the logo uses): http://www.identifont.com/samples/adobe/Times.gif. Finally, compare it to Times New Roman I used in Word: http://www.identifont.com/samples/adobe/TimesNewRoman.gif.

You don't need any more references or citations than that. ---Majestic- 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. (I kid, I kid.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There are many fonts similar enough to Times New Roman and many copies. Unless you have a specific citation then its not proven and as pointed out my Ben Hocking, that is all OR not a citation which wikipedia requires --Neon white 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1994 etc

Hi Neon white. Please be very careful when using the word "vandalism" on Wikipedia. Accusing another user of vandalism when removing unsourced or material sourced from blogs, forums or other unreliable sources is entirely inappropriate, and tends to highlight either a lack of experience with WP practices, or that an editor feels they WP:OWN a particular article. It also completely fails to assume good faith, an essential quality for members of the WP community. With particular regard to One Nine Nine Four, hopefully you're now aware about the need for any WP content to be reliably sourced, and are getting a better idea of the style expected of WP articles. Give me a shout if you have any questions. Cheers, Deiz talk 11:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add your interpretation of the opinions of non-notable forum posters to encyclopedia articles. I trust I won't have to make this message any clearer. Deiz talk 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual kei Request for Comment

We've had two major re-writes to the page, 1 by someone living in Japan based on Japanese sources: [3] Another version by a recent editor: [4] Can you take a look at these and let us know what you think? Denaar 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nimrod (slang)

You placed an {{unsourced}} tag on the article Nimrod (slang). The article presents two sources, though they were in an "External links" section rather than a "References" section, and are not footnoted since the article is all of one paragraph. This was merely a formatting mistake - not a lack of sources. I would politely suggest you take a bit more time to examine articles before slapping on cleanup tags which may not be necessary. — Swpbtalk|edits 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

as you pointed out, it wasnt sourced properly and the sources do not cover the entire article, therfore a tag was completely justified. --Neon white 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alesana

Noticed that a few of your edits were in pages regarding the subgenres of hardcore. Requesting your opinion in Talk:Alesana. Thanks.

Your edits to emo

Neon,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I think the emo article can be greatly improved but to do that we need to use the right sort of sources. We have some good ones dotted throughout the Talk:Emo (slang) page. But the ones right now don't stand up to scruitny. The Daily Mail article, for example, has been widely ridiculed. Please help us to improve the article by adding better content with better citations. I will wait a little, but I will restore my changes shortly (if no-one else beats me to it).

Kind regards,

Cedars 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that the article can be improved. The daily mail and new york times articles are verifiable sources according to all wikipedia guidelines, popular reaction to one of them is not relevant at all and does not change it's status as a reliable source. Deleting cited text after you have been warned will be considered vandalism of the article. Please discuss all changes properly on the relevant discussion page. --Neon white 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Awkwardanniecover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Awkwardanniecover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for album covers

Noticed that the album cover for Awkward Annie by Kate Rusby that you uploaded has just been tagged non-free use. I had a lot of the covers I uploaded tagged so just thought I'd help you out 'cos I didn't understand the bot message for ages. All you need to do is add a ratinoale for each use to complement the 'boiler plate' - you can see an example on one of my album covers here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Feist-monarch.jpg

Sorry if you already knew this! Take it easy mate Cavie78 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me mate! Cavie78 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page

Please don't post on my user page. If you want to post use my discussion page. On the matter of Apples and Pears, I think you'll find that editor SocJan is the one who started not abiding by Wikipedia codes.Tony 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

Deletions from Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

You cannot just delete content from an article because you don't like it. The three works of Joseph Geraci had been removed by the author. I was restoring them. I assume you know the works. If so, why are you deleting a work that has the expression "perspectives of boy love" on the front cover (Dares to Speak)? Boy love is pedophilia. Loving Sander is also, without doubt, a story about pedophilia. Sander is a 12-year-old boy. A man loves him and has sex with him. That is pedophilia. The Deaf-Mute Boy is described on the cover as a love story. The relationship is between a man and a 13-year-old boy. Also, it is not necessary to have references/citations for every Wikipedia edit, though these are desirable. If you wish to argue for a work's deletion, please argue it on the talk page.Tony 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Tony

Any content that isn't sourced cam be deleted. Everything added to wikipedia has to be sourced without exception. That's the bottom line. That's how wikipedia works. It doesnt exist to publish you're original research. --Neon white 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Support for Neon white's comments above; request for support in deleting A + P OR material

Re: Your comments on Wikipedia policy and "Tony Sandel's" difficulties with them: After you (Neon white)in response to an RfC, deleted the OR plot summary of the story "Apples and Pears" on the eponymous page, Tony restored that material -- posting it on the GUY DAVENPORT page.

I would prefer not to delete this reverted A + P summary without first getting your agreement. (You may consider this note my support for deletion -- and retrospective support for your welcome action on the A + P page.) Thanks for taking an interest. SocJan 02:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

If you have comments concerning article's content, leave them on article's talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. --Neon white 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism

The problem is that there are many countries across the world where political parties are motivated by religious nationalism. Why single out India ? Also, nationalism is probably multi-faceted in a large, diverse country like India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that it can be argued that religious nationalism is the dominant expression of Pakistani, Israeli nationalism. I dont know that much about the Irish nationalism, I thought they were part of England. I dont think this is true in India's case (can provide good references if you want). Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dusks and Dawns

Hello. I noticed you decided to redirect From Dusk 'til Dawn to From Dusk Till Dawn, and moved the book to From Dusk 'til Dawn (book). That is fine. However in doing so you you have created a number of misleading links (see here) If you are going to move articles around and redirect the previous article somewhere else, it is your responsibility to ensure than links are updated accordingly by checking the "what links here" page. A good place to start would be Template:Alibend. Rockpocket 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Christopher_Mann_McKay

Ahem...just because you disagree with his removal of the quote does not make him a vandal. It's unduly self-serving to the organization and its founder, and it is not necessary for the notability of Campus Watch. DodgerOfZion (talk)

I agree with DodgerofZion, you need to read WP:VAND, which states:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism ... Do not use these [vandalism] templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.

It seems you are the one who has violated many policies/guidelines (WP:SELFPUB, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:VAND). Please stop violating polices and accusing me of vandalism. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel

Hi!
The IP (or various IPs????) does not want to accept all our reverts and removals, I should say. Even a little discussion on the talk page does not convince this funny IP that TOKIO HOTEL indeed have claimed a lot of times that they consider Glam Rock part of their musical influences. I tried for a semi protection about 10 days ago but it was declined. :-(
Do you think I could have another chance for a semi protection if I tried a second time NOW?
--Fromgermany (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel, part 2

Hi!
My request for protection was accepted. Unfortunately only semi and for two weeks. :-) Seems we must watch it again after a fortnight. :-(
--Fromgermany (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

discussion started about pedophilia list article

Please read the message I've left on the article's talk page about our dispute here. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Westlife

The citation request tags were placed AFTER I removed the refimprove. I've scanned the whole article before I removed the tag. --Cahk (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with that section but I've made citations on everything that can possibly be cited. --Cahk (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort guidance after nominating the article for GA which resulted in extensive rewrite on the article. If you have any comments or suggestions, I welcome your feedback in making the article better. --Cahk (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cascada

I disagree. Your analogy is not the correct one.

"Cascada" is a spanish word, from which the group derived their name, at least according to Natalie (who confirms that in the youtube video i put as a reference.).

Birmingham's BRMB pronounces it with /a:/. Natalie herself does that, and she has described herself as being English.

Please see the video and then re-consider your deductions.

Regards --Lord Anubis (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A youtube video isn't really a good source, it's self published and potentially breaches copyright, we should reflect the colloquial popular pronounciation even if it is americanized. The other just sounds utterly wrong and have never heard it pronounced like that and i doubt it would be in many accents. I'm pretty sure the name was based on cascade. A spanish pronounciation would be different again. It would be kæˈskædə. --Neon white (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The source is not YOUTUBE, it is Natalie Horler in an interview with StarsGeneration.Com, the video of which happens to be on Youtube. Natalie also confirmed that Yanou (Yann Pfeiffer) who the one who had come up with the name (Cascada) and it means "Waterfalls" in Spanish. See that for yourself at 0:31 here. No mention of "Cascade".
--Lord Anubis (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one for you mate [5], English interview by French site ados.fr, Natalie again says Cascada (with /a:/).--Lord Anubis (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
She cannot be said to represent a popular pronounciation or dialect. Wikipedia requires pronounciation to be broad and that defintion is narrow and if it is based on spanish she is pronouncing it incorrectly. The source is youtube as they are the publisher, i doubt this particular user has copyright permission from the owner, this is why youtube is generally not acceptable as a source. [6] will help get a broad pronounciation. The ideal broad pro. would be /kæˈskadə/. This leaves the 'a' vague as dialect generally will change it. You cannot indicate a broad pro, when in fact it is narrow. --Neon white (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then in the same way, you cannot base it on "Cascade" even if you claim that "Cascada" is a derivative of it. because as you know, some words (eg vineyard), though derived from another (eg vine) differ in pronunciation.--Lord Anubis (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we should, i think it's best to keep it a broad definition to allow for differences in regional pronounciations considering the band is popular in many countries. --neonwhite user page talk 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls

I apologize for being rude to you. Anyway, I think that the info should stay deleted because they are sourced from unreliable sources. Please go over the whole discussion in the debate archive and find out why. I don't feel like explaining the whole thing right now. Marcus2 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read Marcus's talk page, and you are threatening to block him. I don't think you have the power to do that. 70.101.160.105 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read my talk page. I don't think IP 70.101.160.105 could have said what he/she said any better. I feel the same way. I guess it's a small world after all. Marcus2 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, he/she is not new to wikipedia and neither are you, you both should know what warning templates are for and how they are used. --neonwhite user page talk 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am using Plan Xander, you should know what I mean. Like you, I like to maintain Wikipedia and make it a good site. But nowaways, Vandalism and Fan Fictioners are causing trouble. And since I am in this Powerpuff Girls section of your Talk Page, I would like to say that I don't want to get involve in any war, fights or arguements. Let me know what you think about the "Once Popular" Powerpuff Girls. Should they stay, or go? Do explain to me how I will communicate with you if I made a wrong move, thanks. Adam Heart03 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP

I find this quite possible, do you have anything more to add that ties them together? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not put the warning tags on their talk pages as the directions say, so I'm asking for input from them. I think they may be meat puppets vice socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake. --neonwhite user page talk 15:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction

I've just copied the article to a sandbox at my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SocJan/Sandbox and given it a new title along the lines that have been suggested, and a far less POV introduction. Have a look, see what you think. SocJan (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical and judgmental terms such as "pedophilia" and "sexual abuse" are not used here unless those terms appear in the work itself or in significant critical discussion of that work. Unless an annotation specifically indicates the presence of pedophilia or sexual abuse, such terms should not be expected to apply. I don't think that part is really necessary. --neonwhite user page talk 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In case it should keep popping back, I thought it was important to add NPOV and OR tags to the entry LIST OF BOOKS FEATURING [!] PEDOPHILIA, and to delete the Davenport works that were discussed at length earlier on the Guy Davenport Talk page and the Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction Talk page and determined by consensus not to belong on this sort of list.
I found I could not make those edits without undoing your redirect.
My primary intention was NOT to undo that redirect, but now that it is undone let me suggest that you not re-redirect for a day or two. I've put notes on various editor's pages alerting them to the List of Books Featuring Pedophilia, in hopes that we can reach some sort of consensus on procedure:
Is it proper for an editor to lift the content of one article and re-post it under a new name, rather than participate in a consensus discussion of the name? If not, what are we to do?
I don't oppose your solution (redirecting the cloned article back to its origin), but please note Will Beback's comments to me on my user page (and mine in response, on his). I am not sure everyone will agree with your solution. SocJan (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nintendocore

But the AFD was done, they kept it. ViperSnake151 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

edit: oh wait... nm. ViperSnake151 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel

Listen to a real glam rock artist (if you know any other than supposidly Tokio Hotel) before believing anything that can only be found on one non English-speaking site. I must say that I'm unaware how Italy defines glam rock, yet if they are glam rock in the Italian sence, feel free to edit the Italian page but stay clear from the English page. Your bullheaded atitude does not make anything you said more true. Face the facts (look up Tokio Hotel in the All Music Guide which is way more reliable than mtv). Just out of interest how old are you? Your behavior does not seem very mature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorwath (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not how wikipedia works. It reflects verified sources only. See WP:V. The nationality of the source is not important, if they are considered glam rock, then they are considered glam rock. All national MTV channels are good sources according to policy. All Music Guide's relaibility has been disputed many times. Regardless All Music Guide does not dispute the cited fact in this article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

edits on emo

Stop being a dick by calling them emo. You may have sources but anybody can just put that under "Criticism". So seriously I know you fancy yourself a little up there and a little more important but please don't take out your stupidity by labeling a band you don't like "emo". Besides emo is there personal opinion as well.....--Velanthis (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

see emo. it's a genre of music that applies to a number of bands. Also read WP:CIVIL to read on how to edit in a civil manner. --neonwhite user page talk 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC) --neonwhite user page talk 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alesana

Hi, you nominated this article for deletion not long ago. I am attempting to make the case that the band is, in fact, notable, and have requested review at WP:DRV. Your comments are welcome. Chubbles (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramore chart pos.

What stopped me from doin them is that I never had the time to do it and i didn't know all their chart pos. off the bat, if you really want to know ---Crocodileman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Pornographers

You deleted a reference to the TNPs winning a Juno when in fact they have won one. That was a pretty easy fact to check too so I'm curious about why you did that.BigRockFan (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

I do normally assume good faith, but you and SocJan have a campaign to deny the existence of pedophilia, the example of Death in Venice being the most absurd. Your denial of pedophilia in Guy Davenport's fiction is equally strange. The word exists and it describes exactly the situation in both examples. The title you two have chosen is so bad you would be better deleting the article as I have suggested.Tony (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Tony

These are completely unfounded allegations and extremely bad faith. You have been warned about these kind of personal attacks and it will be taken further. As you well know your personal interpretations of literature are not appropriate for wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed links from Saturday Nights and Sunday Mornings

Why did you remove the links from Saturday Nights and Sunday Mornings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.216.165 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of copyright, links to youtube or any media shating sites are discouraged. Regardless wikipedia is not a directory of links. See WP:ALBUM for info on album articles. --neonwhite user page talk 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re Oxford Round Table AfD renomination comment

Thanks for pointing out to Will that I have a right to make my opinion known (heck, it says so on the Notavote template!). Please note that I'm not a sockpuppet (as the checkuser shows), only an SPA.Academic38 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-hardcore

This information appears on the genre box...and I think it's clear enough that emo derivated from post-hardcore to understand that IT POST-HARDCORE IS NOT A FUSION GENRE OF EMO. Emo shouldn't even exist at all, here look at this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdh0Qm_5A0

So is anyone gonna change the information fo the genre box? I'm going to keep discussing this until it GETS CHANGED. The-15th (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment I left on the talk page for Emo...what I'm trying to say is that Emo (even if it does not exist) dereivated from Post-hardcore and not the other way around but in the genre box of Emo, post-hardcore appears as a fusion genre of Emo. Any way to change this? There is a clear difference between Emo and Post-hardcore to not be noticed. The-15th (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your accusations are getting a little out of order. --neonwhite user page talk 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have found your tome and criticism to myself and other editors to be at best condescending at worst abusive. Please do not treat me and other editors as neophytes. The over-handed changes you are making should at a minimum, discussed on the talk page before reverting. It is one individual to quote policy, it is a far better individual who understands policy. Shoessss |  Chat  17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That is ridiculous i have edited in nothing but a civil manner. I have made no personal attacks nor used any offensive or abusive words. On the other hand you have not, at any stage, assumed good faith and made several personal attacks agaisnt me. You have read things into posts that simply are not there and assumed bad faith from the start. Any editor is free to remove original research from an article to improve it. The articles obvioiusly needs work and it is good practice to start by asserting it's notability. It is not vandalism and your accusations are out of order. I suggest you brush up on your civility and conduct. --neonwhite user page talk 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Report me than! I will stand for a review by my peers. Shoessss |  Chat  17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Only persistant offenders are reported. I am simply reminding you to assume good faith. I'm sure you are here to improve the encyclopedia just as i am and the majority of other editors are. --neonwhite user page talk 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Neon white. Now that is extremely admirable of you to say ! Just as you indicated, a majority of editors here at Wikipedia participate to expand knowledge, not restrict it. Let us call our disagreement a difference of opinion with two passionate editors on different sides of the fence, arguing what we believe is right. However, looking at the same goal. With that matter put to bed, if I ever need a passionate advocate, you are now in my top ten. I hope that you will view the same with me. Happy Editing. Shoessss |  Chat  00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

.

Yeah, you sit here gaming Wikipedia making sure the content that you desire and only the content you desire is in the articles you edit. So good luck with that, buddy. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on how wikipedia works, especially WP:V. Learn how to discuss the subject in a civilized way without attacking other editors and without ranting about conspiracies, then your opinion may be taken more seriously. If you continue these personal attacks, not assuming good faith and general disruptive behaviour you will likely be blocked from editing. --neonwhite user page talk 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really care. Not sure where you got the conspiracy bullshit, but I've already deemed editing this website a monumental waste of my time. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Then feel free to leave. --neonwhite user page talk 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately if I didn't check in every once in a while, I wouldn't be doing my part to make Wikipedia a better place. ~Floppie(talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Power pop music list/Vandism on your part

Please stop vandalising the power pop musicians list by adding and re-adding arists that do not meet the critera. You do not have an accurate understanding of the subject matter that you are editing. You could find a reference for almost any artist if you tried hard enough. That's where nuance comes in, and you seem to be lacking in that department. Judging by the other topics that you have edited on Wikipedia, you really don't belong on the power pop page. Please, just leave it alone. You're part of the problem, not the solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.1 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced content from wikipedia this is vandalism, restoring your vandlism however is not. Be warned that i have little patience with vandals and incivil editors. If you continue you will be banned. Do yourself a favour and read these pages WP:V. WP:CIVIL, wikipedia is not based on your personal opinion but those of verified sources. --neonwhite user page talk 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are weak, and if I provide sources that contradict your sources, what then? Why are you adding emo and pop-punk bands to a list of NOTABLE power pop bands? How are Paramore notable for playing power pop? Caberet-style pop singer Mika has never been labeled as being power pop. Why add him? He's not bad or anything, but that's not what power pop is. Did you know that? So, if I find some odd review that classifies, say, Michael Jackson or Metallica as power pop, should they be added? Real answers, please, if you have them. You're not a bot.

The sources are both multiple and verifiable by policy. There can be no contradicion, the criteria is that the subjects have been described as power pop, or contributing power pop music regardless of what else they may be known as. Mika is sourced as power pop [7][8]. If reliable sources says Michael Jackson or Metallica are power pop they can be included. --neonwhite user page talk 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfM

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Tony Sandel#Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

What's going on here? Do you have any diffs handy? Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Yikes, also "= February 2008" Herostratus (talk)

What are you referring to? --neonwhite user page talk 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your messages to Tony Sandel at User talk:Tony Sandel#= February 2008. If there is vandalism or uncivil behavior going on I'd like to help out Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK I looked at the diffs. These are not really serious personal attacks. Templating the talk page of an established user with a threat to block is overreaction. To accuse Tony Sandel of "vandalism" as you did is over the top. Also, Sandel has a point; what are you guys up to over there? Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A personal attack is a personal attack, there is no grading of them. These attacks contained accusations of a conspiracy and slander against two editors, this is as serious as a personal attack can get. As far as i am concerned the warning was perfectly justified and warranted (policy says If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. ) and if any personal attacks occur again it will be taken to the admin noticeboard. Please note this is only the most recent episode in a long campaign of disruptuive and tenatious editing by this editor on this and related pages that began long before i was involved with the page. Serious reocurring personal attacks is incivil behaviour and deserves warnings. It was in no way an overreaction. Personal attacks are not valid points in any discussion. If you disagree with wikipedia policy on no personal attacks i suggst you take it up on that talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 06:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Think about it: what does anybody want to know when searching webcam on wikipedia? History of webcams: fine it's there Technology of webcam: more or less that How the hell can I use my webcam to adress my need, which are not by the manufacturers.

That's why the software listing matters (and should be put in the software section). I can hardly come up with the interest of british public cams. Actually, no I can't. Who cares, except the advertisers of those sites?

So if you really want to stick up to the topic, you have to let great softs links. Even if that seems a priori contrary to the wiki's basic rule. On the opposite, having an article on the wiki doesn't make it pertinent. Again the UK cams. Try to have your brain to work.

So, either you allow some kind of soft listing - which again are what users are looking for for THIS precise topic, either you remove the UK cams that look like porn.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.203.59 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopidia. See WP:EL (see #5 of 'links normally to be avoided'). These are obviously inappropriate links. These are not notable sites or software under any criteria. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --neonwhite user page talk 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

On my talk page, you responded to Tony Sandel's comments by saying "assume good faith". Tony was mainly disagreeing with you over technical/content issues and that is not a violation of WP:AGF. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He was making clear accusations that he has been warned about multiple times, to quote The key point for me is that SocJan and NeonWhite are determined to deny pedophilia in Davenport/Mann. We should question why they do this. this is not assuming good faith, he has constantly accused others of having agendas other than improving articles. It is not possible to work with this person whilst he maintains this poor behaviour and if it happens again it should go to ANI where i have also noted your role as an administrator has been extremely poor as you have failed to deal with this incivility and ignored it to the point of denial. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bringdapain

Besides User:Pinkpowerranger I didn't act any further, but I saw the resembalances between the two accounts because they were editing in the same articles and adding the same types of images. Sorry I can't help further (I was trying to keep that situation under control.) Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

List of death metal bands

Your edits to the page, while courageous, were misguided. They have been reverted. The list stays the way it is. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pleas stop editing the metal lists. It's been discussed before. You are breaking WP:CON. Your edits will only be reverted. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not having this argument. It's been discussed many times before and the consensus has been continually to leave the flagicons in. If you like take it up at their respective talk pages. Thanks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one disruptive editing. I know what the manual says. Like I said, you will only be reverted by others if you remove the flagicons and/or change the format. There was a huge debate about this a while back. All these admins came in and argued it out as well. Some of the lists were almost deleted and some did get deleted. They were all remade and re-fromatted back and the consensus came to be for these special lists, flagicons would be allowed. You don't need to warn me, go ahead and find out yourself. I won't stop you. You'll see. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, sure. The flagicons are important on that list to emphasize nationality so that one can see what countries those bands come from more easily. The way you formatted it make it look like a Wikipedia Category. You mentioned: Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view". Where your wrong is that first off, this is not a person or even an articles about a person or persons. It's a list of bands. That does not risk any sort of neutral point of view. Besides, there are no "other qualities". No neutrality is being broken. And this already has been discussed. Those flagicons simply make it easier to see what country those bands orignate from. I think that's all justification enough. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're just not going to agree then. I gave a great justification and you won't accept it. I also find those other lists horribly boring. Adding the flagicon to the list isn't inane or non notable (as adding number of members and such would be). The flagicon is simple, uniform and takes up little space. All list should have it. It adds a little something to them. It breaks absolutely no neutrality. It doesn't mean that the bands are nationalistic or any of that crap (as it might for a person), only that they come from a certain country. Since we won't agree I see no reason to go further with this conversation. You will see what happens. And if the people dedicated to those lists suddenly give up on them now, so be it. Also you forgot the thrash list, which is probabaly the most well done. Not to mention there are other metal lists you missed. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whcih talk page? I did make a justification which you seem to have missed. Those flagicons are not breaking neutrality at all. They are not simply decorative. They are useful, which I said. It helps a person to see what country the band has come from right away. IT doesn't hurt the list at all. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag Icons

I believe that you are misguided in your recent edits regarding flag icons. Putting flags on a large list, especially a list of bands, is the right way to use flag icons. WP:FLAG states that flags must be helpful. The flags are helpful to the people who read the lists. They assosciate a country with the band. The country can often tell the reader the style of music. For example: I am a metal fan. I know that Norway is a great black metal producing country.(see Dimmu Borgir) I also know that if I see a flag icon of Norway on a list of black metal bands, that the band with that flag will have a similar playing style. That is not always the case, but it is in a great many cases. Undeath (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A talk page topic that may interest you

This new article discussion may interst you. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see Neon, all your edits have been reverted by others. I told you, it is a losing issue. You cannot win this issue no matter what. I tried to tell you. People get crazy about those lists. There have been crusades by other users (incl. the 156 IP user man) in the past to totally delete those lists and at other times change them. It ain't gonna happen. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Black Metal

"nationalist pride or decoration" were the words that you have thrown out there to justify your deletion of flags from the articles. The lits with flags have NOTHING to do with "pride" or "decoration" but rather education. Their purpose was to inform rather than look pretty. My comments were supposed to come off as saying that the flags serve an educational purpose, rather than a vanity purpose. Also, there is no way that it was fancruft. If it were fan cruft, the list would have much more than just a flag. Until you can cite a specific rule violation of WP:FLAG, your edits will, more than likely, be undone. Undeath (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Made of Bricks

With all due respect, if you aren't sure something is vandalism, don't revert like you did here, where you added vandalism back into the article with the edit summary, "not sure this was vandalism looks like a good edit, removing non-pro reviews". Please get in the habit of actually looking at the edit history. The "good edit" you describe is vandalism added by a vandal-only account. There is no song named "Cunnilingus" by Kate Nash. —Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the edit and nothing to suggest it was done in bad faith. It removed a number of non professional reviews from the article in accordance with guidelines at WP:ALBUM which you wrongly reverted as vandalism. Please remember to assume good faith with all editors and only reverts edits as vandalism that are obviously done to harm the article.
Please find an administrator to help you understand what I wrote: Martin Bruff (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only account. There is no song named "Cunnilingus" by Kate Nash. I reverted to the last good version of the article. You then added the vandalism back in with an edit summary saying "not sure this was vandalism looks like a good edit". It was vandalism by a vandal-only account that was obviously done to harm the article (do you even know what cunnilingus is??) and it wasn't a "good edit". We do not assume good faith with vandal-only accounts. —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Another vandal account has showed up: 84.12.55.126 (talk · contribs). —Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I know what you wrote thank you very much. you made a poor revert, that removed good faith edits by User:172.203.139.152. This was poor editing. In future make sure you only remove the bad faith edits. Removing good edits is just as damaging to the article as the vandalism you were trying to remove. Also brush up on your civility, you condescending attitude towards other editors is not helpful.
You don't appear to understand the concept of "vandalism" nor "reverting to the last good version". 172.203.139.152 (talk · contribs) has exactly one edit in their contribution history consisting of the removal of content. There was nothing damaging aboug my revert and followed Wikipedia:Vandalism. However your addition of vandalism back in to the article is the very defintion of "damaging". Judging by the looks of your talk page, you have not learned to edit properly in the long time you've been here. Therefore, I request you put yourself up for adoption by an experienced Wikipedian or you request mentoring. Otherwise, I will make a formal request that it placed upon you in lieu of your continuing disruption. —Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is utterly irrelevant how many edits the user had, the edits were good. I have edited wikipedia for a considerable amount of time and contributed alot to the encyclopedia. You made a mistake with an edit and i reverted it, in responce you have been grossly uncivil and launching condescending personal attacks about my editing skills. I suggest you cease this pettiness, admit that you made a mistake in reverting good edits rather than simply removing the small piece of vandalism and issue an apology on my talk page for your rudeness and remember in future that interacting with other editors in a civil manner is more productive.
This is precisely the problem; you have been editing Wikipedia "for a considerable amount of time" yet you have no idea how to revert vandalism, which entails, according to all known guidelines reverting to the last good version. The only mistake that was made, was by you, and you have still not acknowledged that your edit restored vandalism to the article. I will once again ask you to request adoption or mentorship, as your entire talk page history shows that you do not appear to understand what you are editing. —Viriditas | Talk 15:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know how to remove vandalism, especially when it is several edits back. There is no need to revert all the edits since the vandalism occured. As i said, considering these contained good edits, this just eqaully damages the page and does not improve it which should be the aim of every edit. I admit i did not see the vandalism at first as it was so small compared to the large edits you reverted in error. Reverting to the last good version is only appropriate when there has been a considerable amount of vandalism that cannot be easily removed. This was not the case here, it was one line only and could easily have been and should have been removed manually. I do not need any help i have been positively involved in wikipedia for long enough. My talk pages shows no evidence to the contrary. I believe it is time for you to apologize for this condescending and incivil attitude that you have adopted from the start.
No, from the start I have been very, very clear. And from the start, you have denied everything. Your entire argument is absurd on every level; on the one hand, you continue to erroneously claim that I wrongly reverted vandalism. That is false as I have shown above. On the other hand, you continue to defend a single, solitary edit made by an anonymous IP address that consisted of nothing more than a deletion of content without any edit summary.[9] I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot take anything you say seriously. I suggest you bring this to the attention of an administrator immediately. —Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You have adopted a condescending tone from the start and have not assumed good faith. WP:AGF says When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. I did not criticise your edit and have never made any suggestions that your edits were not done in good faith you however responded with accusations about me not looking at the edit history and have continually made baseless criticisms of my editing practices. I have never claimed you wrongly reverted vandalism, i said in reverting to the version you did, you also reverted a significant good edit for the sake of removing a single line of vandalism. I also clearly stated in the edit summary the reason for my edits so it should have been clear. I can see no purpose whatever to take this an administrator. This is not a content dispute, there is no edit warring here. I am merely asking for you to assume good faith, appreciate other editors contributions regardless of how many edits they have.
I can only conclude that you are having some kind of difficulty understanding the English language. Therefore, I will once again entreat you to request adoption and/or mentorship. Since you have not shown any sign of comprehension or understanding of what I have written to you in very simple language, our discussion has now ended. —Viriditas | Talk 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you have decided to apologize. I apologize for offending you. —Viriditas | Talk 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

I don't like the saying "I told you so..". However, I did say it was a losing battle. People are in favor of flagicons on those lists and people have gone crazy before about it. There's been numerous battles on those metal lists. People have tried to get them deleted a few times before because of the Categories. As it stands, flagicons are here to stay on those lists, at least. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the thrash metal list talk page. I also have this to add. It has been mentioned by quite a few people already that you are the only one crusading this effort and no one is in your favor (no one's spoken up anyways). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know where this is but maybe you tell them to say something on the metal lists' talk pages. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize all of that. I may have come off sounding like a n00b to you, but I'm not. I know all about wikipedia. I know about the "rules" and guidelines. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

Hi, remember this one (the AfD)? Having survived, the page is now receiving attention from only three editors, all relatively new, and while there is no edit warring (everything is confined to the talk page), I think it could really benefit from some "outside" attention. Things start to get difficult here, in relation to a single sentence in italics a few paragraphs down.

It seems clear to me that User:PigeonPiece is a reincarnation of User:Obscuredata, who was banned for sockpuppets, and if so then he/she is working with an "undeclared" conflict of interest, apparent here in relation to that previous account.

Now, I'm not trying to get carte blanche to do whatever I want, and I don't even expect or anticipate that you would agree with my perspectives on things there. Again, the main thing is simply that I think some outside attention would be useful. If you have the time and interest... thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Boy_band#Westlife_Sales

You asked about sources and here they are: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Would these be enough? ;-)

I've misunderstood your meaning on that page and now I get it. I don't think any bands (boyband or not) can be objectively calculated for how many records they sell. Newspapers have quoted them selling anywhere from 36 to 50 million. I've found most sources (the current ones) to be ~40 (not including the latest album) so that seems to be a fair statement to make. --Cahk (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Webcam

Hey Neon, you should check the edits more carefully. All I did was revert some test edits that had replaced the content with "hi". And please, WP:DTTR --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment RE: Futurekids

Please see my comment to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurekids. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The offspring

How is the offspring Pop punk? Only bands like Blink-182 and MxPx are pop punk. PLEASE change the genre to something that sounds like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Workersununite (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever editing that article. As far as i can see the info is sourced though i fail to see what it has to do with me. --neonwhite user page talk 04:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Emos in Mexico

Why did you remove this? [15] Without an explanation or justification I can see the removal as vandalism or testing. If you object to the paragraph you should state why you do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's my mistake! Sorry 'bout that.. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Freebass article

Hi mate - good work with the Freebass article and for helping stop the speedy delete. I've just reverted your minor edit so that the opening sentence reads "Freebass are" instead of "Freebass is" though because the article is about a British band. Don't want to get into an argument/edit war so here's the justification: American_and_British_English_differences#Grammar Cavie78 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Campus Watch

What I added was sourced to an academic journal. Please examine the diffs more carefully in future, and at least read the edit comment, in which I said it was sourced to an academic journal. I don't appreciate templates on my talk page, espcially when the templates are really puzzlingly wrong... --Relata refero (disp.) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

90% of the info was not sourced and included personal opinions and biased synthesis. This was not acceptable. --neonwhite user page talk 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing something. It was a direct quote. Are we sure we're talking about the same diff? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Among other things, this may be Pipes' way of taking revenge on the scholarly community after failing in his own pursuit of an academic career in Middle East studies. This is unsourced personal specualtion and the only thing i removed. --neonwhite user page talk 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a direct quote from the article in the peer-reviewed journal for which I added a properly formatted reference. (Unfortunately, that is by far the most common view of this enterprise among the sort of person who writes in academic journals.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

You may have noticed that the various articles we've been working on have been proposed for deletion by an editor who is being investigated after making insinuations against Haiduc and me. Your input welcome.Tony (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Tony These are the articles afd List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents,

rv vandilism

You reverted my edit saying it was vandilism but in fact My edit was removing vandilism (they are clearly not emo, listen to there music, then real emo music, like Madalin Marison, you can hear the diference).--Kingdom of crash and spyro (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not personal opinions. You have removed cited info without a valid reason, this is vandalism. Please read WP:V for more info on how wikipedia is sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Neon but they have even said it themselves there not so isn't that proof?--Kingdom of crash and spyro (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
No, see WP:V for more info. --neonwhite user page talk 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomboys

I note your additions to the list of tomboys in fiction. One has a review source which seems fine. The other two seem less satisfactory. I don't want to discourage a good faith effort but others might not be so tolerant. If unsourced entries are allowed then this might open the floodgates to lots of OR. What I'm not understanding is why the anime fans care so much about this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hayley

But what's the difference between Hayley Williams and [[Lacey Mosley if anything Hayley deserves an article due to considerably more sources--KingMorpheus (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of emo artists

I have nominated List of emo artists, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive1