User talk:Timmeh/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timmeh. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Help needed (again) user is displaying ownership of articles and has made a threat

I am contacting you again because since the last time I left a message User:Jerzeykydd has restarted his edit warring because of his personal feelings of ownership ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this.

The underling issue which started all of this is the user in question and I have a disagreement over how to label parts of a section. The user has had it suggested to them (by you) to start a discussion on the matter but has chosen instead to continue to edit war. the user insists via claims of ownership on labeling the results of presidential election article by state in a manner in which it appears as though equal weight is given to the "by county" results and "by congressional district" results as is given to the "statewide" while in some cases the user seem to accept Result (instead of "statewide", but will not accept election result)

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important (labels I attempted to include (results by congressional districts and results by county) because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). I would be happy to discuss this on the talk pages but the User:Jerzeykydd insists on edit waring and inadvertently is making it harder for users in other countries to understand what is the important (determining #'s) and what is essentially just an interesting fact. I know this is long winded but I wanted to explain what is going on and how it started. Highground79 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Highground. If you're still in a dispute with him, I suggest you copy any discussion to the appropriate election article's talk page, rather than having it in fragments at each of your talk pages. I'm not exactly sure if any article fits into that category. You might try Talk:United States presidential election or just a random state's election article. Or, if you don't mind restarting your discussion, you could start a new one at one of the aforementioned talk pages and notify Jerzeykydd and some other election article frequenters about it; a few examples are: GoodDay, Qqqqqq, and JayJasper. I'll weigh in as well. If you still don't get many comments, which is unlikely, you might want to file a request for comment and see if that gets you any more opinions on the matter. If Jerzeykydd continues to edit war after consensus has been reached against his view, I'd suggest filing a report here. Hope that helps. Good luck resolving the dispute. Tim meh 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, about the threat, I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes any more threats, especially if they're more direct and uncivil, let me know. Tim meh 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, good catch on the McIlrath uncited revert, but it's not particularly insulting that he would be gay. de Bivort 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

McIlrath himself might disagree. Either way it was vandalism meant to insult him. My comment was definitely not meant as an insult directed at homosexuals, and I apologize if it came off as insulting. Tim meh 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky Headhunters

I've had a couple problems. The only source I can find to verify that Kenney left is a blurb from Associated Content, which is blacklisted (and I believe user-submitted). I think the fact that Doug Phelps is cited as bass guitarist on their official website is enough to verify that Kenney has left, since I have found no mention of his departure in any reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made a couple fixes. How would you suggest expanding on their critical reception? Summarizing reviews from a few sources seemed to work for McBride & the Ride. I was thinking something like "Allmusic has given generally favorable reviews to all of the band's albums except for Rave On!! and Stomping Grounds, saying that those albums blah blah blah. Entertainment Weekly, however, said blah blah blah, and Country Standard Time said blah blah blah, but said of Flying Under the Radar that it blah blah blah." Would that work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that sounds fine. Just make sure to keep it as neutral as possible and avoid words like "however" which could introduce bias, especially in this context. Timmeh 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Which do you think would be better? One section for all the critical receptions, or just highlighting them in the sections on each album? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    - I want to say separate them for each album, as that's what I normally do. But there are so many that it may just be more practical to gather them into a critical reception section. That's the option I'm leaning toward right now. What do you think? Timmeh 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      - Working them into each album's section might be better since it spreads it out more, instead of bunching it up into a huge section of "X said Y, but Z said A". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        That's a good point. If we put them all together, it would be hard to make it not read like a list. You can go ahead and work them into the sections. Just be careful not to mention too many reviews for each album. Using this method, you have to be careful not to go into excessive detail. Tim meh 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        Okay, I think I've got it now. I'm still having trouble finding reviews that describe the specific details of the band's sound — for instance, the specifics of Martin's guitar style. I know that in the liner notes to one album, he states that he always cranks everything to 10, but beyond that I'm not finding anything more specific than "ringing" to describe his style. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        It looks OK as it is now. It's no problem if you can't find those specific details; they don't really seem necessary. Tim meh 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        Okay, anything else you think it needs before passing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        Just one more thing: Is the table in the members section with all the time periods really needed? I think it may be better to keep it simple and just list current members and former members along with their instruments and years in the band, sort of like how it's arranged here. Tim meh 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        Done Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        I've passed the article. Congratulations and good work. Tim meh 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Metalcore band vs. heavy metal band debate

It really doesn't matter, what the sources say, the only changes are to the lead, not the stated genres, BFMV follows the same era of metalcore with thrash metal as does Trivium and Shadows Fall, both articles that have their lead as "heavy metal" band. — GunMetal Angel 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, it does matter what the sources say. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability. If metalcore is supported by more sources, which it currently is (6 to 2), it should be given more weight. Your own opinion has no bearing on content in Wikipedia articles; that includes genres. Tim meh 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, the lead should be simplified as "heavy metal" band, there several sources for Trivium and Shadows Fall for their metalcore genres, you're just not getting this are you? • GunMetal Angel 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe having heavy metal in the lead simplifies it. Heavy metal and metalcore are different genres. Also, supporting a point of view by claiming other articles have the lead a that way is not a good argument to be putting forward. If you wish to discuss this further, please bring it up on the Bullet for My Valentine talk page. If not, I'll reinsert metalcore into the lead. As I stated earlier, that is the genre referred to by most sources when describing the band. Thank you. Tim meh 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN notey

Just to tell you that Intimacy is at GAN. Because you've proven to be a reliable and insanely helpful reviewer in the past, I was wondering whether you'd like to do this one? I won't be offended if you turn it down but I would appreciate it greatly if you could find time to do this. Thanks in advance :) GARDEN says no to drama 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to review it. But I'm afraid it'll probably have to wait until Monday when I have more time. Tim meh 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No rush. A few pointers about it: 1. It won no awards and sales haven't been given out by the band, 2. There were few promo things, let alone promotional tours, as it was rush-released, 3. Few recording interviews (1 in Scotland, 1 in Canada, 1 in Australia, 1 in Rolling Stone) and no print media whatsoever. It might be wise to treat it as a mixtape more than an album in its details (like Piracy Funds Terrorism maybe) cos the whole point was to sidestep critics, commercialism, and biopics like those on A Weekend in the City (which I'm doing atm and it's got more coverage than the Bible). Having said all this, I'll try my best to flesh anything out before Monday. Rafablu88 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. Shaped it nicely with breadcrumbs. Rafablu88 05:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. I know I said I'd review it on Monday, but I've been a bit preoccupied. I'll probably have time later today to at least start the review. Tim meh 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Thought I'd tell you in advance that, if improvement advice is given in the next couple of weeks, it might take a while to be noted as I'm on and off due to holidays. I think Garden might be busy, too. Rafablu88 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just been so busy with other things, both on and off Wikipedia, that I haven't even been able to take a look at the article. I'm almost certain I'll be able to review it on Monday. If you could remind me then, that'd be great because I have so much to do that I, especially recently, am finding myself putting off Wikipedia tasks and eventually forgetting to do them. Tim meh 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

!!!REMINDER!!! *thunderclap* *cymbal crash* Rafablu88 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential election of 2008

Hello. I added information about the size of the popular vote victory to this article, and explained the reasoning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2008&action=edit&section=12 . If it is significant to note that the victory was 'narrow', then it is equally significant to point out the size of the victory (so the reader can decide). Since 'narrowly' can easily be construed to represent a specific point of view, the wiki NPOV guidelines would seem to support including an objective, empirical piece of sourced evidence that by definitional MUST be NPOV.

This was NOT resolved via 'consensus', and wikipedia rules themselves state that a consensus decision does NOT mean that the decision is 'forever'. The size of the electoral victory is sourced, is a fact, and is every bit as relevant as the subjective adjuective 'narrow'. Please do NOT revert this edit. If you believe you have justification for doing so, please do so on the talk page. Unilateral removals of this relevant and NPOV information will be reverted

Thanks,

138.210.160.198 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I reverted your edit before seeing this message. ~~As for your reverting, you're the one making the change. Therefore, it is your job to bring up the issue on the talk page.~~ I suggest you take a look at the consensus policy and then look at the previous discussion. Consensus isn't forever, but to change it a new consensus must be formed. Please read over the overly long discussion that occurred back in January before trying to argue for the inclusion of the 3 million vote fact. The wording as it currently appears is neutral because by every legitimate measure, the election victory was narrow. If you wish to discuss this further, please ~~bring it up~~ keep the discussion at the article's talk page. Tim meh 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I re-added the reference. I looked over the supposed consensus, and it certainly was not clear. I made an edit, and you specifically reverted a sourced, empirical number that (while you may disagree with it) is objective and relevant. We can discuss it in the discussion page, but while we are discussing it, I would ask you to please leave the addition alone. It harms nothing, it is sourced, and it is objective. It adds less than 1/10th of to the length of the article so it does not lengthen it unnecessarily. SO while we are talking, I would ask that you respect the wiki guidelines about 'violates consensus' NOT being a legitimate reason to revert an edit.

Thanks,

138.210.160.198 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since he has clearly broken the 3 revert rule, he needs to be banned. Seriously, his amount of edits are completely ridiculous. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:My Delirium/GA1

Hey Timmeh, sorry for the delay. I have left a note there. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timmeh. I cannot for the life of me find any more sources, at least none that are more substantial than an unqualified forum post. Sorry again for the delay. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's just one more problem I see. The second paragraph of the background and recording section doesn't look like it belongs there. It may be more appropriate in the chart performance section. About the recording time and place, you might want to notify the original reviewer of the article and see what he thinks about it. As long as you move the paragraph I mentioned, I think the article satisfies the GA criteria. You'll have to get the original reviewer to give the final verdict, though. Tim meh 14:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance Genre issue

Hi, you just reversed my edit on the My Chemical Romance article. I feel it's fairly justified, seeing that asking anyone in regards to their genre, they would agree they are Emo. I think it's fairly accurate to at least put them down as Pop rather than Rock. Please get back to me in regards to this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancinginthemoonlight (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the opinions expressed by reliable sources matter. Your own opinion has no weight here. Normally, I wouldn't oppose emo being in the lead, but sources list the band as so many different genres that it'd be best to just generalize it by listing them as rock in the lead. Additionally, listing emo would just invite many reverts by fanboys and complaints by many others. Tim meh 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll refrain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancinginthemoonlight (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

;)

Your support ---> here. Rafablu88 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My Delirium

So what do you think about My Delirium as it is now? Would you pass it? -shirulashem^(talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, as soon as the second paragraph issue (which I mentioned here) is fixed, I think the article is GA quality. Feel free to pass it once the paragraph is moved. Tim meh 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. It was my first GAR and I learned my lesson ... it's a lot easier to do a GAR on a topic that you have even just a little knowledge of! -shirulashem^(talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Just make sure any article you review strictly satisfies all of the GA criteria before passing it. One more word of advice I have for you: It may be one of the most time consuming aspects to a GA review, but not only do you have to check to make sure all the sources are reliable, you also should check to make sure the information citing the sources is actually published at the cited source. Being verifiable and free of original research is one of the most often missed requirements for a good article. Good luck on your future reviews. :) Tim meh 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information

IllaZilla deserved no civility, since he was rude to my in his suggestion that i use a sandbox (if you think otherwise I don't care) - if he had written "verifiability" that would have been somewhat different. As for verifiability - do a google search, I'm sure you'll find a lot of hits - do they count in the article? I'm sure you'll say no, they don't since its not professors, but just ordinary people being annoyed that one couldn't view the digital media outside of the US unless employing hacking or proxies (like here http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-80550.html) - I was there i know the anger, and as for the edit, i know what i removed doesn't belong there in a factual objective world - but if i can prove it to your sanctification i don't know and frankly don't care you write what you want. Everybody knows not to trust wikipedia too much. --IceHunter (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla's actions absolutely did not warrant a breach of the civility policy. The reason some people don't trust Wikipedia is because information is added without citing a reliable source. If more people knew our core policies, Wikipedia would be much more verifiable as a whole and would have much less original research. Encyclopedias shouldn't rely on ordinary people's opinion; they rely on professional opinion of someone who is an expert in the subject in question. I hope you can contribute constructively and help further Wikipedia's goal. We are still a work in progress and we could use all the help we can get, as long as those helping abide by our five pillars. Tim meh 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution to Ruled Out Debate NEED YOUR FEEDBACK!

Proposed solution to ruled out debate on [[1]]. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

RE:My Chemical Romance

MCR is not pop punk but more alternative rock. The albums that they have produced are also listed under alternative rock. So why are you always changing it back to pop punk? They did do some punk but are too heavy for POP punk. So please leave it and don't change it. Why did you also take out the new song names I put in? Please be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrfobrockr (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

About the genres, it doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what the reliable sources say, as Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Your sources are not reliable, and I suggest you read over the reliable sources policy to confirm it yourself. I really don't have a strong opinion about the song names being shown, but they are probably not notable enough to be shown at My Chemical Romance. Tim meh (review me) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok but please just leave it at alternative rock and I can take the sources off if you really want me to but just leave it alternative rock and post-hardcore =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrfobrockr (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't unless you provide reliable sources. Tim meh (review me) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:An explanation

Very well and agreed, maybe you're a nicer person that I think you are. :) • GunMetal Angel 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to clear things up. I hope you don't take any offense at my comments during a content discussion. I'm just furthering my argument and attempting to end the lame dispute and edit warring that's going on at Bullet for My Valentine as soon as possible. I'd like to get back to building the encyclopedia, which includes saving that very article from being delisted as a good article. I hope you can help me achieve that goal once this whole lead genre ridiculousness is over. Tim meh (review me) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

About the Sum 41 edits

I think the way you did it that it goes with two chronologies (studio and non-studio albums), it is very confusing, and I haven't come across any band, and this goes for bands with even more albums and EPs, to have such a split chronology between studio and non-studio albums. I think it'll be for the best if there will be one chronology with all the studio albums, live, EPs, etc. like most bands, its less confusing that way. Full discography could be viewed in the discography page anyway, so thats my opinion. I think it'll be better this way. JackShestak (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how it is confusing? It clearly states that one chronology is only for studio albums and one is for other releases. Also, here's what {{Infobox Album}} says: "In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains." Tim meh (review me) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just find it weird because I don't think I've another band where the chronology was made this way with studio albums and other albums split up, thats all. I find it weird, and I don't see the reason for Sum 41 to be the only band here where it is organized this way when clearly every other band I saw is not organized the same way, thats what seems confusing to me. JackShestak (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it must be confusing, but the template recommends the chronologies being split, and that takes precedence over the fact that other articles have just one chronology. Tim meh (review me) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Approval Rating?

I didn't really want to drag anyone else into this, but I noticed you and I disagree from time to time, but we do also see eye to eye some of these topics. I am new to Wikipedia as you probably can tell and I have been editing [[2]] article as well as the election. I kind of went the same rules we are sharing in the election. Now, all of sudden there this is this one Editor who like has taken over the article, [[3]]. I made one edit I felt to be original work and now he claims, he going to get me blocked it I make any more. Claims he has consensus with other editors in the discussion, but only it's only him a IP address source. I don't coming off very rude and so controlling of the article, now he's got me worried he can just have me blocked for editing that page.

I guess I just wondered a couple things that you might be able to help me with.

1. Is there place I can report this harassment, which it is feels like?

2. Or if still at least prevent him from blocking me like that,

3. Since I gather you have an iinterest in politics, I was curious if maybe you had some feedback for the article. I figure more understanding people, like yourself, may make the page better and get this guy to back off. Thanks. 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)David1982m (talk • contribs)

Don't worry. You can't be blocked for making an edit in good faith, and the editor won't be able to get you blocked unless you continually edit war. I'll take a look at the talk page discussion and put in my opinion. Tim meh (review me) 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've boldly removed FDR from the table and fixed a bunch of the references. I have the page on my watchlist, so if I get reverted (which seems likely, based on this user's past edits), I'll start up another discussion on the talk page. Tim meh (review me) 03:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man! I appreciate your help! 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)David1982m (talk • contribs)

Thanks for assuming bad faith regarding me. I am actually quite unlikely to revert your edits, because 1) I don't participate in edit wars and already stated I was stepping back, 2) there's enough disagreement to the point where there's no consensus on the article in question, and 3) David1982m provided references for some of his unsourced claims (e.g. the 62% average approval for Obama, which is now correctly cited as being from Gallup rather than being his own work. FDR had been included in that page since time immemorial, but now he's gone. That was a shaky one to begin with; Gallup doesn't even include its own numbers for that guy on its President pages. Most of that page really isn't my work to begin with; I had just been helping keep it polished, remove bad data, and update the numbers when needed. Someone came by and inserted unsourced and original data, discussion was had, people were warned, acts have been being cleaned up. There's no need to get personal. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

JSharpminor your comments were very negative and rude, you did not appear to be showing any good faith toward me. I showed you more than you did me, you will note I add your source to mine because it complemented. Although, now I see they do not connect well. FDR shouldn't be included because is information is in complete. He deserves a separate section separate from the chart because he actually can't be fairly rated with the others. Just explain FDR was the first, however, is information is incomplete. David1982m (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, please don't think I was assuming bad faith. In no way is reverting someone's edit a bad thing. You would not be committing any wrongdoing with a first revert of my edit, and I wouldn't take any offense from it. However, it is better to discuss rather than revert in order to avoid a possible edit war. Tim meh (review me) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for not holding a grudge, neither will I. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work. Thanks for participating in the RfA.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BFMV (NOT A JOKE THIS TIME)

why you always gotta tell on me for? im just trying to have some lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.47.32 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You vandalized Bullet for My Valentine and made personal attacks directed at me right here on my talk page. You won't be blocked if you decide to contribute constructively and not make personal attacks. Tim meh (review me) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i may have done that stuff, but i assure you i only did it for the lulz of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.47.32 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a joke. --Connormah (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meadville, Pennsylvania

Thanks for leaving a well-written and constructive note on that editor's page. I was just about to decide to stay out of it, because I lack the patience. (You noticed, probably, that there's a history in the history making the same edits, no doubt the same person.) Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. Just watch your reverts in the future, as you did break the 3RR at Meadville, Pennsylvania. Tim meh (review me) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I did? Haha, I'm sure you're right. Well, I wasn't the only one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

Regarding the editor review. Thanks for the compliment on my talk page! My scores are made up of 2 parts. 50% is for contributions (including GA's, FA's, DYK's and edit summaries, as well as depth and breadth of them, for example on GA review and AFD, CSD etc). You got 4 for this (explained further at the review page). The other 50% is for actions and reactions to other editors, with conflicts, edit warring and how they deal with that. Top marks for this since your last review!

As for your RFA, things from what I have seen look ok, and you should have a better chance of passing, I would support! If you want to be nominated by me, give me a shout on my talk page, and I will be happy to help.

Regards and good luck!

Athe Weatherman 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your review and question at the review page. Thanks again for the great review! Tim meh (review me) 18:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi...

Hi Timmeh ... I hope it's ok if I come drop a line here. I'm not trying to canvass or change your mind or anything, but I did want to tell you that it's really my fault. I've been pushing MZMcBride to do an RfA for a bit now, mainly because I think we need him for the WP:BLP things ... it honestly wasn't his idea to do the RfA. That part of it is all on me. To be honest, he was reluctant, and I kind of pushed him into this. I just wanted you to know, if there is a finger to be pointed as far as "rushing to get the tools back" ... the blame has to lie with me, and not him. — Ched : ? 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've explained this to me, but it doesn't change my oppose stance. I am still swayed to oppose, even disregarding the "eager for the tools" thing, by the poor judgment shown that led to MZM's ArbCom case. I'm not convinced he's realized the gravity of his mistakes or shown, definitively, that he won't repeat them, and I don't know if anyone could in just four months. Other people obviously feel differently, but when dealing with a former admin who has made such big mistakes in the past, I have to be more cautious. Tim meh (review me) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I just didn't want my own actions to unfairly reflect on another editor. Thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 10:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thunderclap

Hey man. If you've got the time, have an input/edits at the A Weekend in the City FAC. Your efforts are always appreciated. Rafablu88 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow and see if I can find any problems. Tim meh (review me) 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Where's the WP policy debate about this? Cos it's come up on the AWITC FAC. RB88 (T) 11:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The main discussion was here. There was no consensus to italicize titles other than tree of life ones, but it seems the main opposition's argument was that "it doesn't look right" or "it's unnecessary", which are not perfectly valid arguments IMO. Tim meh (review me) 14:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're totally right. I think it looks more professional with italics. RB88 (T) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Timmeh! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, September 10, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|September 10, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised, but thanks a lot! :) Tim meh (review me) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

southpark?

I saw your name and thought of timmy saying "timmeh" from Southpark. lol tommy talk 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :) Tim meh (review me) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

About time too...

Mazca would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Mazca to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 3. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Transclude it when you're ready - don't forget to update the start time once you've answered the questions and accepted it. Best of luck, hopefully you won't need it! :) ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotion

Just FYI, it looks like you've moved up from Veteran Editor {{sa-veteran-ubx}} to Veteran Editor II {{sa-veteranII-ubx}}. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It says 2.5 years of service are required. I didn't start editing actively until May 2007, and I wouldn't exactly call my first edit "service". Tim meh 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I hadn't actually looked at the...errrm..."quality" of your edits, only at the date. Well, just over a month to go then. :) —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy G6

I just moved Thomas F. Hamilton per your request, and then saw that this issue had actually come up as a question in your RFA. Thought I would point out, for future reference, that the template {{db-move}} is actually better suited for this type of request, and that any {{db-g6}} without a specific rationale is always difficult for an admin to interpret. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I usually use Twinkle when I do CSD taggings, which isn't often, so I'm not all that familiar with the templates for each specific reason. Tim meh 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

your real name..

Recent comments on your RFA have made me wonder- is your name actually "Tim" or something similar? Or is your name something entirely different, like 'Bruce', and you just chose Timmeh? tedder (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh, I just needed to RTFA. tedder (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yep it's Tim. I probably wouldn't have used the name "Timmeh" if my name was something like "Bruce" or "Bob". Tim meh 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No fair guessing my first name from my username :-) tedder (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Love & Gravity

I will eventually address the issues you raised on this article's GAN. It may take a while but please understand that I am not abandoning the article. I am committed to raising it to a GA level, but at the moment I have other responsibilities. How long can the assessment remain on hold? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The allowance time is usually a week, but I'll give you another five days. If you can't address the issues by then, I'll have to fail the nomination. However, you can certainly nominate the article again when you've addressed the issues. Tim meh 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA and a new Question

Timmeh, I've posted a new question at your RFA. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter - your username isn't a bother to me and I'm already down as support, so it's not a critical thing to me, but enough people are commenting on it that it might not hurt to discuss it. Thanks, and good luck with the rest of your RFA! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've answered it. Sorry about the wait. I've been pretty busy this week with real life matters, and I've been trying my best to balance that with Wikipedia and my RfA. Tim meh 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait? 2 hours can be lightning around here. No worries at all - it's a great answer. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I wanted to express the sincerity of my comments in my neutral vote. I have been following this all week, and it was excruciating for me to finally put a !vote. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

In the final hours of your RfA, somebody came through with 4 sock accounts named after South Park characters and added 4 support !votes which were quickly struck down, and the users were blocked. Then there was an SPI run to turn up any available evidence of who the sockmaster might have been, but they seem to have gone off of their normal ISP to do it because the SPI turned up no evidence. There was also at least one oppose !vote based on the SPI, but that, too, was removed fairly quickly. I'm just writing here to let you know how it all happened, since it might not be clear at first sight when you get back (especially if some of the text gets removed.) Sorry that this had to come at the end of an already chaotic RfA. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sure you read that dumb opposition rationale I made earlier today. I just want to say I am truly sorry and you can try to understand my rationale here. I feel really bad and I wish the best of luck to you. Please accept this apology as an inexperienced overconfident Wikipedian who should have never even have been a part of your RfA. Note: I deleted it in the opposition section... it's just... I'm sorry. Best of luck, tommy talk 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Template in your signature

In lieu of having a template in your signature, consider:

[[User:Timmeh|<span style="color:darkred;font:bold 10pt kristen itc">Tim</span>]][[User talk:Timmeh|<span style="color:black;font:bold 10pt kristen itc">meh</span>]] <span style="font-size:smaller; line-height:130%">([[Wikipedia:Editor review/Timmeh (2)|<font color="darkred">review me</font>]])</span>

It gets the job done without the trouble of having a template in your signature. @harej 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however, it would appear that it also exceeds the 256 character limit on sigs stated at WP:SIG by about 50 bytes. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Election

Hey. I need a third party opinion on the article regarding the presidential election in California. Please go on the talk page on the last section and share your opinion. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Old new FAC

Hi, I seem to recall that you supported Intimacy during its first nom. It's now been renominated and much much improved. I doubt there's anything more to change. So I'm wondering if you would like to register your opinion again. Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this comment; I've been really preoccupied with my RfA. When does this FAC get closed? I'm not sure I'll have time to take a look at the article and give input until at least Thursday. Tim meh 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be just about OK timewise I think. Sorry to hear about your RfA. I read the process after it finished and it reinforced my belief in the stupidity of complete democracy. Very unlucky, but hey, there's always articles to improve, right? Chin up. RB88 (T) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and that's what we're here for. I think I'm staying away from RfA for a long while in order to improve my focus on article building. Tim meh 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry your RfA didnt turn out better

I was really hoping that you'd beat the odds on this one. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have closed your 3rd RFA as unsuccessful. While you certainly did better this time, I feel if you work on the concerns and wait 5-6 months you'll be successful next time. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait at least a year, because people here have long memories, and a 4th RfA never looks good, regardless of reality. Majorly talk 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm offering some explanation here and comment on Majorly's comment. I have seen 4th RFAs be successful. I know Timmeh stated at WP:BN that he felt this was in the discretion range. While that is true, it barely was and I feel the concerns, especially the ones about judgment were too concerning to close as successful. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I suppose I should have waited another month or two, and that would probably have made a 10% difference in the supports. A surprisingly large number of the opposes were because I had only waited 3 months between RfAs; apparently, the general agreement on how long failed candidates should wait has changed recently. I suppose I'll just try to forget this and keep doing my usual work, and I'll run again when I'm ready and confident that I'll pass, if that time ever comes. Also, what do you guys think I should do about my username? I was honestly shocked at how many people opposed over it, and I was wondering if anyone else thinks I should change it to something less controversial. Tim meh 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, those who opposed over your username are simply scraping the barrel for reasons to oppose. Some people are like that unfortunately. It has no, if any, bearing on adminship what username you have, despite claims. But if you were to have your name changed, you'll get opposed for trying to hide things (I know you're not, but people love to make stuff up about you at RfA) or for being too weak and giving in. It's a catch-22. It will probably be a good idea to change it though because to most rational people it will show that you care about what was said, and are able to listen. Majorly talk 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am also rather disappointed by the result of this RfA. While I accept the result you were generally qualified, we could do with more admins, and I do not think the oppositions concerns deserved the merit they got. I do hope you try again in the future, though I do not know how long to suggest; I personally think three months is a reasonable minimum time between RfAs, though I have lower standards at RfA than some users. As for your username, I would advice you to have it changed given the circumstances (even if I personally do not object to it) as it is now controversial, and going back to RfA with it will just attract inevitable opposition. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even as an opposer, I concur that the concerns over the username were pretty ridiculous, almost 'looking for a reason to oppose' ridiculous. I can see why the concern might exist, but to oppose over something which can be changed in minutes is silly regardless of the context. I think if you avoid the pitfalls of this third RfA (even the ones you may consider frivolous), you will likely have a successful fourth RfA. All the best. :) — neuro 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I wish it turned out better, and agree with Majorly and Camaron. I only have two things to add: first, congrats for getting it over with, even if the outcome sucks. Second, I have some advice of what you can do now that it was unsuccessful- start drinking. Perhaps heavily. Then know you have a cadre of !cabal members who are interested in you and respect things you do around here. (for instance, your comment on my RFA is something I've taken very seriously). tedder (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my sympathies here as well. I held off commenting on your RFA for a while, because I assumed from the quantity of opposes you were a poor candidate; once I actually read it, I was pretty shocked by how weak most of the oppose rationales are. It seems particularly grating that if you'd just had a different username, you might have passed! Still, I hope you're not too disheartened - you should take solace in the high level of support and the weakness of the opposes. Judging from the results, I think if you simply change your name (stupid, I know, but it seems to be a stumbling block) and spend a few more months making productive edits, you'd have a good chance of passing next time. Good luck. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad luck Timmeh, don't let it get you down; RfA is a pretty shit gig. If you think you do want to go for it again, then I'd recommend a long wait, at least six months. The name thing is just rubbish, Majorly's quite right. If you change your username you'll have just as many opposing because they'll think think you're trying to hide something. He's also right that some will interpret you changing your username as "listening to the community", and reward you for it. The irony with this site is that honesty just doesn't pay. Be your own man, make up your own mind about your username, and stick with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While the name thing is indeed pretty weak, I suggest not advertising that it's because of a mentally impaired character on your user page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timmeh. As a biased comment (as I supported) the your username is crap thing was up there on the list of the ten most desperate reasons to oppose an RFA. The time thing is, in my opinion, not a huge issue (why make you wait an arbitary length of time when you could help now?), but I do understand and respect that a lot of others feel it to be valid. There was an element of haste that, you rightly point out, might have made all the difference if it was not there. I agree with Malleus that at least six months is a good plan now. It's crap, but it is what it is. I do think Rlevse made a good close though - there really was no consensus (as defined by the wierd world of RFA!) Pedro : Chat 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timmeh, really, really sorry that didn't go through, I think you'd have made it but for the bad luck of major dwamah blowing at the same time as your RFA. Especially ironic that you were one of the three !voters who had the good judgement to oppose both Law and Pastor Theo..... Ϣere SpielChequers 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathies, guys. Only a small number of people commented negatively about my username, so I'm going to leave it as it is for now. If/when a significant portion of the community expresses concern about my username, then I'll change it. Also, I've decided to wait until at least March 2010 before running again. I think it will take at least 5-6 months for the community to trust me again. Thanks again for the advice! Tim meh 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the rush? I said at least six months, Pedro agreed with me, but you now say 5–6 months. What's the hurry? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no rush, and no need to set arbitrary time requirements between RfAs. I'd certainly like to have the tools to help out more around here, but if you and Pedro think I won't pass a 4th RfA after only a five month gap, I'll certainly wait longer. Tim meh 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm no judge, I've failed two RfAs myself, but you do come across as just being a tadge too eager. Relax, buckle down to what we're supposed to be here for, write a few articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing since long before my last two RfAs and what I plan to do regardless of whether or not I become an admin. The whole RfA system is horribly broken, IMO. RfA rejects good candidates for being human or for being eager to help out and then wastes hours trying to figure out why we have an admin shortage. But that's another rant for another day. Let me just say that I don't know when I'll run again. Maybe it'll be never, but it definitely won't be in less than 5-6 months. For now, I'll continue building the encyclopedia and I think I'll completely avoid the failing system that is RfA until I run again, whenever that may be. Tim meh 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly easier to be human after becoming an admin. Not that that helps you or anyone else, though.. tedder (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me share a few thoughts with you Timmeh. I've been active on wikpidedia for about three years, and I've probably got about 50,000+ edits. During that time I've probably felt that I could have usefully used the admin tools maybe 20 or 30 times. The only reason I reconsidered my decision never to go through RfA again was because of the mythical flagged revisions, which still hasn't materialised, and until that does get implemented in some meaningful way I won't be bothering, and maybe not even then. As things stand, I think I'd be embarrassed to be tarred as an administrator. I mean that as no disrespect to the many decent administrators, but without a clear and enforced code of conduct in place I would want nothing to do with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's broken, Timmeh, what can possibly fix it? -- Menti fisto 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the time or patience to explain the numerous problems RfA has, but you can take a look at WT:RFA for a few examples. Tim meh 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I do believe you seem a bit too eager to get the tools my primary concern was your understanding of policy. Your user name doesn't matter to me. Wait a few months and make sure you demonstrate a firm understanding of policy. When people aren't seeing an obvious reason to support they start looking at the small things like your user name and when your last RfA was. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here as someone who opposed your RfA and mentioned the name thing, and hopefully my comment is helpful if only by virtue of being in a different vein than the previous comments. Your username was ancillary to my opposition, as I had already !voted before even realizing the root/meaning of the name. I did and do see it as an issue though, and find it hard to credit the views of anyone who cavalierly dismisses that concern as some do above (for reasons I explained on the RfA). I don't think the username issue was the driving force behind the failure of the RfA and as such would not worry about it too much either way, and your best bet is to keep your own counsel as to whether you change it or not (but know why you do so, and don't immediately dismiss arguments against keeping the name with which you may disagree). I think this RfA got into trouble because of how quickly it followed the last one which was not uncontroversial. Despite not participating I vaguely recalled your last RfA and had a mild negative impression as a result which caused me to actually look into the history there and your general candidacy (which I generally don't do—like you I think RfA is rather broken, though perhaps for somewhat different reasons). I think the (for some) "too soon" nature of this RfA garnered opposes from some folks who normally would not bother to do so and also perhaps led others to not weigh in either way which may have decreased the number of supporters. In the end I expect this failed RfA is rather more difficult to swallow than the last two, but that actually might make it more useful for you in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can find a way some day to have fewer failed RFAs, I don't think they're helpful. Timmeh, I'm very sorry about advising you that 3 months was enough ... although I'm still scratching my head at why anyone thought or thinks that 6 months is needed. But they do, and unless we have some kind of productive discussion about that, I think it would be best to wait 6 months before your next RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If your feeling disheartened, do remember that the overwhelming majority of users supported your request. In many places outside Wikipedia getting 70% support would be considered a great success, politics would be an example. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimus Non Carborundum - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Cheers for the nice words. Another star in the the bag. Hope you're getting back in the swing of things and, when you have time, a FAC review of Remain in Light would be appreciated. RB88 (T) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it later today. Tim meh 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Appeal to Reason Tour

I brought up a lot of reliable sources and the tour is even described and talked about in the Appeal to Reason album page, only briefly. In this page, I just brought all dates of the tour, and such. There are tours far less notable that get their wikipedia page, I don't see a reason to not include that one. Its a big tour of a pretty big band, and its being sold out all the over the place. I don't really see the problem with that. I worked very hard to gather all right dates and right supporting act bands on the tour and all, and its just gets deleted like that. JackShestak (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

3DG

You'll see my name popping up on some 3DG pages here. I overhauled the main band page way back...quite a few months ago. There is a lot of work these pages need so feel free to contact me if we get into a conflict. Daniel Musto (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw your name and noticed you just came back from a rather long wikibreak. Welcome back. I'm hoping to nominate Three Days Grace for GA soon. However, I keep getting the feeling the article is too short for a band with such popularity, but I can't really find much else that would be important enough to add. Do you think an awards section would be worth the trouble? They've only won one (Billboard Rock Song of the Year) and have been nominated for several others, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth it to search for the reliable sources needed for an awards section. Also, I'm thinking that maybe the musical style section could be expanded, as it's a bit short. If you have the time, It'd be great if you could possibly find some more info on their style so we can nominate the article at GAN. Tim meh 02:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that any notable information we can add to the main article should be added. Just look at other bands and see what information is present and we can do our best to mimic it. Also, I found two interviews/articles for their new single Break online and added some quotes from the band members. I also cleaned that article up a little bit. Let me know what you think. Daniel Musto (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits looks good. However, I suggest using templates for citing sources so that all the references are in the same correct format. Some examples of these templates are {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. Every citation should include all available information including the date the article was published, the author, the publisher, and the access date, in addition to the title and url. Tim meh 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely look into those and try to fix them. You may need to hold my hand for a little bit when it comes to those parts of Wikipedia. Check out those sources if you want to add some data to the main band page though. Daniel Musto (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I formatted all the references for Break using the correct templates (hopefully). I am also constantly fighting people who are trying to post YouTube links. >.< I noticed a lot of the other 3DG singles and other pages need fixing so if you've got a game plan, I am all for it. Daniel Musto (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. I somehow missed your comment. I'm currently focusing mainly on Three Days Grace, trying to find more relevant info to add. I have several related articles on my watchlist, but right now I'm only editing them to revert vandalism or to make minor fixes. I suggest focusing on the oldest album articles, such as Three Days Grace (album), first if you're wishing to add content. The older albums will have more coverage in reliable sources and are long overdue for an upgrade. Tim meh 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you want to move this discussion to my Talk Page, feel free. I don't have nearly as much going on there as you do here. Anyway, I am working on bringing all the 3DG-related pages up to par. I overhauled Life Starts Now yesterday, rewording, adding references, properly formatting citations, etc. I will leave the main Three Days Grace article to you unless I find something pertinent to add or fix. My short-term goals are to properly word and provide references to all the 3DG articles. After that is done, I can focus more on finding additional sourced information to add to them. I am sure you noticed, Adam Gontier is being proposed (again) for deletion. Since you seem to be familiar with WikiPolicy much more than I, I will let you handle the initial reply to this nomination. I understand his article needs proper references and sources, but I certainly think he is notable. Anywho, cheers. Daniel Musto (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've !voted at that AfD, and you're welcome to voice your opinion, too. I've also made a few fixes to Adam Gontier and added the sources I mentioned in the AfD in order to rescue the article from deletion. Tim meh 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things I would like to standardize: One being the introduction to the 3DG singles and albums. Some pages list them as an alternative metal band, others as an alternative rock band, others both, etc. etc. We need to figure out what adjective we are going to give 3DG in intro paragraphs, if any. Also, at the end of these articles, is it necessary to wikilink the members who don't have individual articles? For instance, clicking on Brad Walst just redirects you to the 3DG main article...so is the wikilink necessary? Daniel Musto (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For the intro, I suggest using either alternative metal or hard rock, as those are the two genres listed with sources at Three Days Grace. As for the links, if a member's page just redirects to the main article, there shouldn't be a wikilink. Tim meh 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly much more fluent in Wikipedia policies and guidelines than I, but I will surely take a look at the article and see if I can tweak it in order to improve it. I still have a lot of work to do on the other articles, I am afraid most are in very poor shape and they are not uniform enough for my liking. Daniel Musto (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tofufacekim

If you review the history, you'll see that I was merely restoring the original warning which was removed by a clueless newbie. In fact, you are the one who provided the redundant warning. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The original warning was too harsh and did not assume good faith, and that's why I removed it originally. When an editor has only vandalized once or twice and hasn't been warned about it before, only a level 1 warning should be used, followed by a level 2 warning after the second offense, and so on. Usually, an editor is not blocked unless he/she has received an adequate amount of warnings. Tim meh 21:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you aren't the one who removed the initial warning. Second, WP:UTM provides guidance on what level warning to use. Given the nature of the edits, it was clear that the editor was not acting in good faith and thus a level 3 was appropriate. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I had removed it, but it turns out you're right about that. About the warnings, I wouldn't go so far as to call the instances of vandalism obvious bad faith edits. A level 2 warning may have been OK to start out with, but I think jumping right to a level 3 is really pushing it. Obviously, a new editor like this is not going to know Wikipedia's core policies, and to jump right to assuming bad faith would assume the editor does know he's violating policy. I don't think there's enough evidence to make such a claim with certainty. Tim meh 21:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

When an editor inserts obviously false info in a self-promotional way (more than once), it seems evident that they are not trying to improve the article. Quite the opposite, in fact. But it's a matter of interpretation, I guess, so we should probably just agree to disagree. :) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Love & Gravity

Love & Gravity has been on hold for a month with no improvements. I think it's time to fail it as a GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten all about that. You're right; it's been way too long. Tim meh 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:I'm confused

I consulted TenPoundHammer, I didn't directly request deletion. • GunMetal Angel 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying. The author has now blanked the page again after I left him a message about it, so he apparently wants the page deleted. Tim meh 23:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's terribly written anyway, I'm not suprised. • GunMetal Angel 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad someone took up the task of archiving all those old reviews. Just remember that you still need to add {{discussiontop}} and {{discussionbottom}} to the review pages to close them from further comments. Tim meh 01:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get around to doing that in a few days, since some users are still displaying that they are being reviewed on their talk pages. Somehow I always find the backlogged projects and work to clean them xP. Cya around Wikipedia! Netalarmtalk 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding notability

By adding notability I mean adding contents which helps with showing something is notable. Rescue tags might be an option. To lose valuable information is not a good idea, I think. Olivemountain (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just make sure you're more clear in the future, as admins will likely give your !votes less weight if they think they're invalid or based on false assumptions. Tim meh 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing review

I see that you've gone ahead and closed the reviews. Thanks for the help. Netalarmtalk 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I had some time, so I figured I'd do something useful. :) If you need any help doing the rest, don't hesitate to ask. Tim meh 14:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

3 days grace

Hi, Whilst it is sort of a blurry area, I am sure that most music connoisseurs would agree that 3 days grace are in fact post grunge albeit not all their music can be classified as such. I have added a source to back this assertion as per you request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.194.183 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first source doesn't even claim Three Days Grace is post-grunge, and the second takes its information from Wikipedia, which makes it automatically unreliable. I've removed your addition, and if you disagree with my assessment of the sources, please respond here, and we can discuss the issue rather than edit war. Tim meh 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Panic at the Disco article

The cab is listed as an associated act as well, with only one member in common. Panic in that way is associated with the cab, AND the Brobecks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.32 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cab has toured with Panic on multiple occasions, has Urie featured in a song, and have gotten help signing to a label from Smith. I would say that definitely makes an associated act. According to these two articles, The Brobecks don't have any member in common with Panic, and they haven't done any collaborations with them. Tim meh 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The current Bass player is Dallon Weekes (the brobecks) Current guitar player is Ian Crawford (the cab)

that is the association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.32 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to {{Infobox musical artist}}, having only one member in common does not make two acts associated. Tim meh 01:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career" arguably this statment includes band members. Contradicting the later statement regarding having one memebr in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.32 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict it. One common member does not make an association significant. The list of uses that should be avoided just expands on your quoted text rather than contradict it. Tim meh 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford on 2012 Republican Primary Page?

I think the Sanford debate will never end, lol. I have 3 sources that are still discussing Mark Sanford in conjunction to 2012 that are less than 6 months old, but JerzeyKydd is still insisting that discussion for him has ceased for 6 months. The sources I added are less than 6 months. I agreed to take down Ensign because no one is talking him in conjunction 2012, but why are people still talking about Sanford in conjunction 2012? I was wondering if maybe you wanted to add your feedback to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said my two cents. I'll put the page on my watchlist. Also, be careful not to get too attached to the debate or argumentative. We don't want an unnecessarily overheated dispute and edit war; I know Jerzeykidd has been a primary contributor to several of those in the recent past. Tim meh 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin

Actually, the sources do back it up, look more closely. The NME one is not taken directly from wikipedia, it's the site of a published music magazine; the IGN one does say alternative rock (look on the right hand side, there's an infobox of sorts that clearly says "Genre: alt-rock") and musicmight is the website of an established music journalist, and has been verified as reliable in the past. So all are perfectly acceptable. 86.141.186.110 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Huh, now that is strange....the NME one has changed. I swear to god when I first saw that it had a completely different biography that wasn't from wikipedia at all. Odd. Oh well, removed that one now, but that still leaves three others. 86.141.186.110 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're right about the MusicMight source; it was showing a gallery of random album covers for me before. The IGN source does list the band as alt-rock, but I'm wary of and wouldn't give much weight to sources that just list genres in tables without mentioning them in the actual prose. Maybe we could create a musical style section to give more detailed coverage of the band's style rather than just listing a bunch of sources in the lead. Tim meh 23:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Panic at the Disco

Hi. On Panic! at the Disco, there is a small edit war between anonymous people and myself (and you). So can you do something about it? Thanks. RichV 11:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the IP may have taken a break from the edit warring. I already gave him a message on his talk page regarding his closeness to violating the three revert rule. If he continues to edit war, even if he doesn't technically violate the 3RR, I can and will report his actions at WP:AN/EW. Tim meh 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more people reverting, so it's not one person I guess. Thanks.RichV 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the IPs that were repeatedly reinserting The Brobecks as an associated act were the same person with a dynamic IP address. It looks like they've given up, though. Tim meh 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions for editor review

If you have time time, could you take a look at my suggestions for improving Editor review? I've posted by suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Complicity (album)

Looks like we had the same idea at the same time, Lol. Not sure why it didn't alert me of an edit conflict. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha yeah, this article just keeps getting recreated. Hopefully, the admin who closes the AfD will salt the page this time. Just as a note after seeing you tag it for CSD, the G4 criterion wouldn't apply. The creator of the article this time was different than the creator last time which means the content is likely not substantially the same, making G4 invalid. Tim meh 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I was a little hesitant when I added the G4 template. I figured it would just get removed within a day if it was incorrect and I would simply open an AFD, but you beat me too it. I will keep this in mind for future speedy deletes! Happy editing :) Fezmar9 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)