User talk:WillFirminger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A welcome from Sango123 2 CSD-A7 3 Your article 4 Adam and Andrew 5 Wikipedia:Clueless newbies 6 Re: Bureacracy sucks 7 Adam and Andrew (cont.) 8 unblock

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, WillFirminger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] CSD-A7

Hi there. I read your post on the Clueless newbies page. CSD-A7 is a criteria for speedy deletion, which means it was deleted by that user because they felt it was a "non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons which does not establish the notability of the subject." It might be best to talk to User:Mushroom if you feel that the article should be re-instated. - Akamad 02:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article

(via edit-conflict) I didn't delete Adam and andrew, but I'll try to explain why it was deleted. CSD 7 refers to Candidates for speedy deletion provision 7, which says, "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." (where AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, i know the jargon is a bit much at first) Essentialy it was deleted because a couple of users thoughut your article wasn't important enough to have an article. That of course isn't the final word. You can appeal to have the content restorted at Wikipedia:Deletion review (follow the instructions at the top of the page). It is unfortunate that the article was deleted in this way, however it's likely that even if you got the a review of the case it would be left deleted (I can view deleted articles, because I am an admin). Check out WP:MUSIC where some guidelines for inclusion for bands/groups are listed. Usualy printed albums are needed for the band to be sufficiently notable. Of course this band isn't standard so you might have a shot. You can direct any other questions you have to me. Broken S 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam and Andrew

Hi Will, I see that Akamad and BrokenSegue have already explained why I deleted the article. If you think that Adam and andrew is a notable band, you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and file a request for un-deletion. If you need to get access to the text of that article I can retrieve it for you. Mushroom 04:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, after reviewing the results of the the page's AFD. --Madchester 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Clueless newbies

Hi, I saw your request for assistanse on that page, and I'll try to help you. Wikipedia has some basic guidelines as to what can be considered as notable, and for music related subjects the guidelines can be found here. As for the article, most of the participants on the article for deletion page votes against keeping it as they don't appear to be notable enough, and to be honest, it doesn't look that way by looking at the article. If you want to keep the article, please include as much information as possible; as it stands now, the article mentions an album, but not the label this was released on, or if the band has held any concerts or similar. Hope this helps! Bjelleklang - talk 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bureacracy sucks

You commented that "these people seem to think Adam and Andrew are not important enough to be mere kilobytes of space on wikipedias precious servers."

Please note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no upper limit to the articles that are on the website. However there are policies in place to ensure that articles meet some degree of notability. Articles have to cover topics with some degree of signifiance. The "Adam and Andrew" article failed the guidelines set out by WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. --Madchester 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your example of the Numa numa song proves the point of Wikipedia:Notability. That internet fad was popular and significant enough to warrant interviews on Good Morning America, The Tonight Show, etc... as well as several major print publications, such as The New York Times. The fad also spawned tribute videos on other websites.

Also, Adam and Andrew's CD clearly fail the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. The bare minimum is that an artists has released two albums; Adam and Andrew have only released one. And the act doesn't even come close in the other categories regarding album/song charts, touring, or mention in the media (print, music magazine, radio, etc.)

I recommend reviewing the notability guidelines so that any future articles you create won't be subjected to an AFD and possible deletion. --Madchester 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Will, I can't believe that your article was deleted. I am not sure why. It is not like the name is already taken. The space is not an issue so why cant they keep it? I would think that if they were really concerned about clutter then they could make a category for "small" bands with sub-pages or something like that. I think the effect of such actions is that well meaning people like yourself will be pushed away from Wiki and what will be left will be some kind of club. You would think that they would want to help make your page better. Not to delete it. It seems obvious that you are not a promoter or just wanting to use wiki as your own web page. Andrew Powell 17:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam and Andrew (cont.)

Once again, the results of the Adam and Andrew Article for Deletion process yielded a near unanminous decision to delete the article. I didn't vote in the poll, I simply reviewed the votes and opinions to close the poll and delete the article. Once again, if you believe that the article is worthy of un-deletion, then submit it to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Otherwise, belittling administrators for deleting your article (per comments on Talk:Icy_Hot_Stuntaz), despite the obvious AfD results of your Adam and Andrew article can be considered a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you belive that the Icy Hot Stuntaz article is non-notable, then you can bring up a 2nd AfD, if you please. Attack the content, not other users. --Madchester 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against the article for the Icy Hot Stuntaz, I also believe that this deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Everything here (aside from the 'made up one day in school' type articles, which I can't remember the accurate name of), in my mind, deserves to stay, as, if it happened, it should be in an encyclopedia.

Adam and Andrew in particular had a significant effect on the description of the Emo, which had been widely spread throughout the Internet.

My comments on the Icy Hot Stuntaz talk page were in no way an attempt to belittle you, because the criticism was a somewhat emo example of sarcasm directed at the method in which articles on Wikipedia are moderated, not specifically to you.

Will 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

You aren't directly blocked, the block message gives detail of the source of the block e.g. an autoblock or because the underlying IP is blocked. You need to give us those details as we can't see them. --pgk^(talk) 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the block message actually say, what reason does it give. And what IP address does it list. --pgk^(talk) 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the block message for that ip is "(returning vandal, long term vandalism, warned repeatedly, seventh unique block; have your system administrator contact me)". And has been in place for about 1 to 1.5 months. I'm not willing to unblock straight away since there is quite a history of vandalism from that address. can you talk to whoever is responsible for the computers and see if they are willing to try and track down who is responsible for the vandalism (We have dates, time and article names/urls). Since there seems to be a history of vandalism if I do unblock without dealing with the root problem it is very likely that the IP will just end up blocked again and again... --pgk^(talk) 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, IP blocked = everyone blocked from using that IP. There is a long standing request to resolve this, but no ETA at the moment. --pgk^(talk) 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)