User talk:VoxNovus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability of Mary Jane Leach

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mary Jane Leach, by Rockstar915 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mary Jane Leach 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 Mary Jane Leach, 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 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Robert Gluck

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Robert Gluck, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Robert Gluck is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Robert Gluck, 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 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Robert Carl

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Robert Carl, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Robert Carl is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Robert Carl, 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 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Mike McFerron

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mike McFerron, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mike McFerron is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mike McFerron, 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 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in David Gamper

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on David Gamper, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because David Gamper is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting David Gamper, 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 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Judith Shatin

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Judith Shatin, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Judith Shatin is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Judith Shatin, 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 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Cindy Cox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cindy Cox, by Seattlenow (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cindy Cox is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cindy Cox, 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 00:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

VoxNovus, I have blocked your account indefinitely because every new article you've contributed has been a copyright violation (I deleted those that weren't already taken care of). Please read the messages above and the linked policies and guidelines regarding copyright. We can't accept copywritten content on Wikipedia. If you can show some indication that you understand what the problem is and will try to avoid it in the future, I will be happy to unblock you. If I'm offline, you can request same with {{unblock|your reason here...}} and another administrator will handle it. Thanks.--Chaser - T 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you per our email communication. You should be able to edit again.--Chaser - T 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be useful in the future (look at some of the links in the box on the right side of the page): Wikipedia:Copyrights --Chaser - T 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

I've seen your new pages coming down the chute tonight while I was on patrol. These address all the problems we've talked about. Good job.--Chaser - T 04:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are not copyright violations, but some of the WP people who do not understand why academics are likely to be important will probably try to delete them, because there isn't enough information given. I'll defend all such articles where there's enough material to defend, but they must have information about their published work and its critical reception, including prizes. If they are musicologists not composers, a particularly careful job has to be done because there are less likely to be reviews and performances. I can;'t fix all these myself--it's up to you. Please be aware that often assistant professors and sometimes associate professors turn out tnot to have doen enough yet to be recognized as notable. DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Living Music Foundation

A tag has been placed on Living Music Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of George Brunner

A tag has been placed on George Brunner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Waschka II

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rodney Waschka II, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. (If I'm missing something in the notability, please let me know -- I don't see it, but that doesn't mean that the person isn't notable....I'm wrong a lot!) TheOtherBob 05:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Brunner

Yes, it's unfortunate that you have chosen a user name that is the name of an organization that apparently promotes contemporary composers and then created an article about a contemporary composer! If you were to clarify that you have no relationship with Vox Novus itself, that would probably help ease the situation. Best to do it on the article talk page. Feel free to remove the tag. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To add to that point from the Rodney Waschka II page -- you note there that "One of the missions [of Vox Novus] has been to list prominent contemporary composers, musicians, and organization on Wikipedia." That's certainly an understandable thing to be doing, but from the Wikipedia perspective it's...well, it's backwards. The mission of Wikipedia is to catalog notable human knowledge. But it's not an advertising service or a place for otherwise unknown artists to gain prominence that they don't already have, but rather a place to catalog that which is already notable. To the extent that your mission is to improve Wikipedia by adding notable, already-prominent contemporary composers, welcome. But to the extent that it's to increase the visibility of otherwise unknown artists, such that they can become prominent, then that's not really why we're here.
However, we definitely want people with expertise on this topic -- and to the extent that you're offering yours to help build Wikipedia (as opposed to helping build something else by using Wikipedia), that's definitely welcome. --TheOtherBob 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely the idea. I started writing on Wikipedia because I noticed that it was missing new music articles. VoxNovus (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, VoxNovus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dennis Eberhard.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Dennis Eberhard.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of NewMusicBox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on NewMusicBox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because NewMusicBox 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 NewMusicBox, 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 contact the bot operator 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the e-zine NewMusicBox is not notable? the NewMusicBox has been written up in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1033435349509928673.html?mod=googlewsj
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E5DB113BF93AA35753C1A9649C8B63
Not including that it is a world renown new music journal that is referenced by hundreds of composers and musicians.
This e-Zine seems much more notable than 90 percent of the e-zines at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Webzines
Why aren't they "speedily deleted"?
VoxNovus (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the sources from the NYT and the WSJ it is not about the magazine but rather a first announcement of the "New Music Jukebox" that, at the time of the articles, had yet to exist. The notability from the articles enhances that the American Music Center is notable, but their derivatives still need mroe evidence of their own notability to receive their own articles. They can otherwise be featured on the AMC page mentioned in passing with a brief overview.

Actually, the Times article is exactly about the accomplishment of NewMusicBox. It refers to them creating an online source of contemporary music as scores and music available for download. At the time an accomplishment to the community. the NewMusicBox had been founded in May 1999, well before the writing of this article. VoxNovus (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to "more notable than these articles, delete these" read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –– Lid(Talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

For the confusion and the debates that went with it, it was my fault for not making myself clear and probably confusing the issue with another issue I am currently dealing with. –– Lid(Talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foldover

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Foldover, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Foldover. Dravecky (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Cox

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cindy Cox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Cindy Cox. This article is very weak and needs some work, thanks. Golgofrinchian (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a stub, not an article. It was created this for wikipedians to add to this notable composer. Wikipedia is sorely missing pages on contemporary composers. It seems it is interested in "pop" culture rather than anything else. In general, I consider composers who receive critical acclaim in more than 2 nationaly printed papers notable. Please research and add rather than subtract. VoxNovus (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Schetky

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of George Schetky, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.library.upenn.edu/collections/rbm/keffer/schetky.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I wikified this page. VoxNovus (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)