User talk:Kiac - Knowledge (XXG)

553:

time it has been redirected before it has been because there is no title or reliable info on release etc. That has changed now. I must admit I forgot that articles on this album have been attempted before, but really they could have been deleted, but redirecting was easier. I don't see their edit histories being overly useful. I'm trying to create a good article before a rubbish one comes along and gets deleted, because I believe there's enough info for it now. And don't worry, I will hunt down and include sources across the article; I'm just concentrating on getting it written first.

3515:, where he senselessly called the band fags. So it's not like I just pulled what I said from nowhere, it was more a reply to his idiotic statement. Everything I said was true, I also believe it was an attack on the content he posted. What kind of idiot writes that? You need to be bagged for taking the time to add that to a Knowledge (XXG) page. Absolute nitwit, and is this really worth some kind of template? I already know it's wrong to bag someone, but some deserve it. Can't argue against that. 863: 817: 25: 5721: 5661: 5601: 5541: 5401: 5341: 5281: 4881: 4825: 4743: 4687: 4497: 3576: 2344: 3676: 3228: 3160: 2782: 1819: 5035: 4625: 4564: 2322:. But even so, you must realize in the discographies should apply this, the albums can be studio albums, compilation albums, live albums, extended play, and so on. Thus I consider it not only I can see that most of the articles discographies are well, I'm not the only one. On the other hand I think you ought to be more tolerant of the contributions of others. For that we are here to help. Thanks. -- 5467: 3331: 2682: 5740:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5680:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5620:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5560:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5420:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5360:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5300:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 4900:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 4844:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 4762:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 4706:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 3415: 1542:. So, I think it's a very in depth and thought out review, I've worked my ass off on it. I'm trying to find a venue where my review can be qualified as good enough to be on wiki. I find the fact of the review been on ap.net hillarious, since it's well known the bias the website has with this band. I have published the review on my 4235:, as I put in the edit summary, it brings a couple of immediate issues to light. One main one being "Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue". And the reason why I will remove them so bluntly usually, is that there is only supposed to be one (the original) release date in the infobox per 1357:- we deal with pretty much most indie labels. Going back to my point about 'underground bands', you won't be seeing a review of a band like Between The Trees in Blender - this is the music we cover, not Blender. Without our review being linked, there would perhaps only be one review there. Why limit knowledge? 5159:

WikiProject page as a member committed to the project. I saw you were interested in anything and I believe you are willing to do this for me, so I think this task is perfect for you! Please email me if you accept my offer, through email I will give you any questions and our Facebook link concerning the page.

4144:

But well that's beside the point. I read the WP:RS and WP:ALBUM pages attentively but I fail to see where my site doesn't fit in. Also you should check in your definition of "blog" just because the site I'm involved in uses software that was originally intended for web logs doesn't mean it's a blog.

1502:

In the interest of ending edit warring, I'm going to respect the deletion of the review. I maintain that the site is not a blog but a website with a paid staff composed of professional journalists. The personal blog rules should not apply to it. In this case, it should remain in the article until the

1410:

I really and genuinely believe that we have something that sets us apart from other webzines which cover similar content (Quality, professionalism), but I really don't wish to spend time debating this. In standards of reputability, we may not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. In standards of quality,

1356:

bands, so by definition, we're not going to be 'Rolling Stone'. 'Blender' and 'Rolling Stone' are NOT our contemporaries - AbsolutePunk.net is the most reputable site which covers similar content. We are incredibly good at what we do, as has been acknowledged by the labels and publicists we deal with

475:

who was banned over a year ago and has made numerous new accounts since then. In the last year, the other editors that knew him simply as USEDfan would block the new accounts on sight. I figured that maybe after a year he would have changed, but I have come to find that was quite the mistake. He will

552:

film. I will work on this after writing the album article. As the "fourth studio album" article was always redirected fortwith, it didn't actually occur to me to move the article, especially as it would have to go over a redirect. The versions created before aren't really the same article, and every

336:

Right, yeah. I'd say that there won't be any more successful singles from that album, although I don't know about some songs. Some people judge songs on lyrics, some on the tune, some on both, and some on other aspects of the song. So I'm thinking that the lyrical content is not all of what's got to

4348:

I usually go down the watchlist and pick out the edits which appear to be more likely unproductive, then go to the difs and rollback from there. The thing is, a lot of the time you're not biting a new editor, you're biting someone who has come here to change something completely insignificant, like

1036:

and the TOC feature different items... I think I will do nothing for now. If someone decides to move everything in the lead sections, I will not oppose. I think that they never charted in Australia, but I will try to find more international charts. I really don't like that UK-US Singles separation.

5510:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

1364:

To cover your point about advertising.. yeah, we are. Please remember however, we're not forcing anyone to read our reviews, and we're not fooling anyone into clicking a link. Looking at today's traffic statistics, I can see that many people have been referred from Knowledge (XXG) - so people are

241:

I am well aware of how to sign my name on wiki, thanks for the useless batch of info. I said what I had to say and you said what you had to say, we can both work on being better editors. Stay off my page with this crap though. I am not going to have a worthless pissing match with you, you are

1041:

and on Knowledge (XXG), but have not yet found anything that would help. In the '80s, with the launch of MTV and the advent of the Audio CD, Promo Singles were gradually replaced by Promo Videos, Singles by Music Videos, and Vinyl by CD. Before the '80s bands, musicians and their producers chose

3105:

In regards to adding the album reviews from BLARE Magazine, it's for supporting and promoting the artists, not for personal fame. I know for a fact the website doesn't make any profit for it's work and is solely meant to support musicians. Plus a lot of review sections posted in Knowledge (XXG)

1969:

I added a reference for IP address 69.37.32.11 since you undid his/her revision. I researched and found the information and cited it. Please do not undo this change please. He never stated that the songs success was ONLY and directly a result of the homosexual community. Please dont delete the

1241:

From what i have read, u seem to be stretching things, for a supposed expert, and appear to be distorting sources to put the band in a less favourable light. You seem to be playing cowboy, and downplaying certain "professional" aspects of certain reviews, with bias towards larger sources from a

2524:

Sorry citations weren't posted earlier. I had some trouble finding past articles where newspapers etc. questioned the credibility of the site. BLARE Magazine is not an unprofessional blog run by some randoms. Sure, the staff are students, but they're non-profit and they function like any other

5158:

My name is Devon Freebern from a small town band from Upstate New York, we are not big or anything but we'd like a Knowledge (XXG) page for future promotion. We would like to assign you the task of creating this page if you are willing to do it. I came across your name on the Alternative Rock

2956:

I am trying to keep the often stylized as blink-182 on the page because bands like .moneen. and korn are kept to their typesets in parentheses after the titles of the pages. Knowledge (XXG) does not allow titles to begin with a lowercase, and since majority of the band's name is listed with a

506:

Once is enough?.. That sure seems rude... I guess I just don't understand the protocol for the discussion page... The reason that I re-entered my comment was that I thought that the person that responded to me (who's comment is still showing on the discussion page) had accidentally deleted my

140:

And since you didn't completely revert my edit - you actually kept the change that I intended to make, but reverted the sales source, you must have made more than just a cursory glance, which means you must have read my edit summary, which leads me to ask why didn't you notice it was a simple

4021:

while i was hoping that putting information about Weezerpedia on the Weezer page would help promote the site, i also think that it is information that could belong on Weezer's wiki entry as well. Do you think it belongs on the page at all? There's an external link to it already. Because you

1348:

when selecting reviewing staff. We don't just find any d00d from a music forum. Linking our reviews provides an well written, informative review for readers of Knowledge (XXG) - often when there are only one or two other reviews to choose from for that particular album. Why not provide that

4415:

We are in no way trying to spam or advertise our website as we don't receive that many views anyway. We are more motivated by the fact of supporting artists and their work. Several musicians/bands have encouraged us to include it on their Knowledge (XXG) page so it can stand out as it is a

4179:

Hi! I'm sort of new to editing Knowledge (XXG). :) I noticed that there is a citation notification at the top of The Rocket Summer page. I've been editing a lot, putting in a lot of the citations as needed. Do you know how these notifications are removed? Curious to know. Thanks!

136:

What are you talking about? What I did was revert genre vandalism by a single purpose account whose sole mission is to remove the completely verified and accurate "pop rock" from all Nickelback related articles. I just had mistakenly reverted further back than I needed to; simple error.

212:

Perhaps checking what was actually deleted and coming to an educated conclusion as to why something so obviously useless was deleted in the first place might help you in future ventures as well. Don't be so quick to revert stuff if you can't be bothered to actually read.

4148:

Second, I don't know where you got the idea we were using a free webhosting server (perhaps because of the subdomain) but if you checked carefully you'd know our host has other hosting plans other than the free one. And guess what, we are paying for them to host our site.

527:

Thanks for the help. I'm relatively new to Knowledge (XXG) and still find it difficult to navigate communication procedure and to understand proper general protocol. It's good to know that constructive argument is welcomed. I really believe that this subject needs to be

2018:

Would the following block quote addition be OK in your opinion? Or is there anything that you think I should take out? The article is very short as it is -- I just want to make sure that I am not putting in anything that is innappropriate, by Wiki album standards.

261:

Yeah, I'm not sure how this works with user's talk pages and stuff, but you said to talk to you on your talk page, and then there's all these people just asking questions and stuff....I'm just not sure I understand what I'm supposed to do when I talk on here? lol

4349:

say a genre or something. Knowledge (XXG) does nothing to help us out for these repeated acts, so I've just ended up rollbacking because wasting time on posting edit summaries goes no where - if they do ask I'm more than happy to give them a sufficient response.

2232:

over at FAC. It's had a lot of extensive reviews (2 nominations so far) so it shouldn't be too demanding or time consuming as it's relatively snappy. What it's lacking is mainly verdicts I guess or any more tweaks that need to be done. I'd appreciate the help.

1042:

which pieces would become the single(s) from an album. Now, the pieces are chosen to become Music Videos, and MVs are often used for promoting albums. So, I thought to add that column. About the Filmography, if I remember well that section was removed from the

3959:

This IP has done nothing but change several pages just for music genres to label everything emo along with recent straight up vandalism to a few pages. I really don't want to revert everything that's been done since it's a lot. Just looking for some help.

1261:

I suspect you have sockpuppeting problems, too, but that's hard to prove. For now, stop reverting. I think you are going to have to open an RFC on the topic to get more eyes on it. You are right that the set of reviews they are trying to insert are pretty

5047:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

4055:, who is the webmaster, historian, and unofficial fifth member of the band has talked to fans about it numerous times. I apologize for any type of inappropriate edits. I'm a big supporter of Knowledge (XXG) and would never want to hurt it. -- 1414:

We will continue to link to reviews of smaller bands. This benefits both Knowledge (XXG), us, and the band. We will avoid pages which already have many reviews from more 'reputable' sources, such as the aforementioned bands (AFI, The Used).

1343:

Your point about 'qualified journalists' is slightly phased. Do AbsolutePunk.net have 'qualified journalists'? Are their opinions always respected? No - yet their reviews are everywhere. Their writers however, are good. Similarly, we have

1119:

I like those extensive/massive info in discogs (^___^). You do not have to jump from one page to another in order to find information about track listings, writers, labels, producers... it is all in one place, but that's just my opinion.

4305:

Noted. I know I should really be using undo for those edits, but I do end up using rollback because of the frequency of seeing those sort of senseless things happen over and over (eg. adding Wikilinks to terms which self-redirect...?).

350:

And besides, a big way that a song can get popular is due to sales (including digital downloads and CD sales), and since it's Green Day, you could imagine that a lot of people are probably going to make downloads and buy the CD single.

4152:

And third, I know you're probably pissed at me for "advertising my site", but before you happily take out my contribution you'd better check out what you are doing and actually justify your reasons. Calling names isn't justifying.

3034:

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

407:

Oh and I wanted to ask you something about what charts are allowed on here. Does Knowledge (XXG) not allow people to put up the "World Singles" chart? Because I think that would be, like, the most notable chart in the world, lol.

4451:

I didn't have anything to do with Blare, but I found the Sputnik review (and one other) through Google and they seemed better than about a dozen others that I read. Also, could you please elaborate on the "staff review" comment?

1360:

I certainly don't see us as being 'alike 10,000 sites'. To my knowledge, there are less than 10 sites who cover essentially, similar content to us - and this is our business to know, so please don't spit out figures like this.

109:

Bruce's comment has achieved enough coverage to warrant Delicious referring to Rioli. Everyone around the club calls him that now, if you were a true Hawthorn fan you would too. You need to loosen up and quit crying so much.

3783:

The Spin rating is based on the rate of the users that are log in the site (from the website "Login or Register to rate this item."). The Guardian rating is unreliable because you can sign in the site and edit the review.

1037:

Also, a couple of singles are not listed there because they were released in other countries... so I have to work on it. Probably, I will merge them into one list. I have tried to find out something about "Music videos" at

4419:

The website is non-profit and from day one, has always been about supporting the artist. That's why we have certain credentials, a sense of professionalism and the ability to feature artists of all genres and popularity.

954:

It was definitely not fan made. It was with the girl from the JOS video singing Whatsername in front of the camera. It was most certainly not fan made, you should check it out sometime. The video's pretty lame too...lol

3133: 5075: 4992:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 1885:

Apologies for that. I just though I'd be a better source of verification to have an image of the reivew. But as you point out, that is most likely breaching copy right laws! I'll stick to the normal citaion rules.

2926:

heh, the reviews were solid, and I've seen them on other pages with no one whining, but I guess if you're a fall of troy fanboy who is hurt by seeing an album he likes receive poor reviews, that can't be helped.

4950:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 764:

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this

663:

1681:

Great Job! Well feeling a bit lazy and have a few others to review but if no one has reviewed the article by the weekend I should be able to start. Some Sports articles take a few months to get reviewed...

1368:

Please take what I've said into consideration. Sadly, you seem insistent on bringing us down, but I hope you'll read and understand my argument. We are adding to Knowledge (XXG), not taking anything away.

2139:

regarding your removal of the {{tracklist}} template in the article on The Resistance - I am trying to gain consensus on whether or not the template should be used. Feel free to leave your opinion there.

314:. I don't know how accurate that chart is, but if they knew of the presumed popularity of the two singles, I think they would be trying to pick the best ones for commercial use....I don't know, though. -- 4330:

Yeah, I know the feeling, it's often obvious for established editors that an edit isn't productive, but if we don't give feedback to the user who made it, it's hard for them to learn the ropes (besides

1277: 5059:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3887:

are reverted without discussion by the same IPs as were causing chaos with This Is War. Fancy trying to persuade them they are wrong? I've already requested page protection but doubt it will work...

491:

Yea, I noticed that the Brand New article had a practically new section written for the upcoming album every time I popped my head in. I will see what I can do. Looks like it's just ref issues, yes?

4472:) and I've got a much better idea about how things work now. I still think some of the "professional" reviews from "reputable" sources are not worth linking to and the list will definitely help. 997:, but a reader may get more information about a recording simply by clicking the "show" link in the Additional info hidden table for that recording, and that would be great! Can you please check 242:

more than welcome to keep what you want on your page as i am with mine. If you want to leave it up on yours, good for you. I don't want useless crap on mine, do not revert MY page again. Savy?

4047:

there is a link to it on the main page of weezer.com, and people involved with the band have provided positive feedback about it. no band members have had anything to do with it as of it. but

476:

be ignoring any discussion and editing pages how he sees fit. I will be tracking down one of the other editors that dealt with him previously probably sometime today to get him blocked again.

2505:

That's a much better way rather than an empty singles discography. I will keep an eye on it from now on to see if someone changes it back, if you could do the same that would be appreciated!

1710: 1588:

I was wondering why the a article was so good. As most AFL articles are very poor. Well done. I can have a look over if you want? It's hard with Rioli because no books are out about him yet.

507:

comment... Are you saying that my comment isn't worthy of further viewing or discussion?... I would love it if you would explain to me the discussion protocol so that I will act correctly.(

2465:

Of course. I failed to look over the consensus guidelines, so I really don't feel that it is necessary to argue something that, as you stated, is quite trivial. Sorry about the trouble.--

4535:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 3614:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2491:

Because they were only relesed in one place they weren't needed. Underneath I added a note saying which songs they were, which country's they were released and what number they charted.

2382:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 4657:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 4596:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 3054: 1026:, I have to confess that I created those three sections //o\\. I thought it was best to add those sections to that article for trying to make it more readable. On the other hand, the 3049: 4653:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4592:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

4531:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3610:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3059: 2378:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

3431: 2615:

and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

2552: 2040:: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it! 5114: 2525:

publication as they have strong ties with Canadian music labels such as Universal Canada and Warner Music Canada, Live Nation and a handful of music venues in Toronto.

734:

I've tried to summarize the debate; I'm not quite sure what your opinion is on the matter, hence I didn't list you in support or oppose. Feel free to do so. Please see

4399: 911:. Apparently Zobbel is blurring the charts. Per chartstats.com, the only Hannah Montana album that has ever made the official UK album chart is "Best of Both Worlds".— 5492: 5488: 3915: 572:

A semi-protected edit request was performed, to amend the figures for MJ to 750m. This request was reverted. Therefore, I have started a fresh discussion thread, in

4524:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

3603:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

2371:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

4646:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

4585:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

1107:. I've copied the Filmography and Singles sections on a scratch page of mine, so I can separate films from video albums, and combine all the singles in one table. 5788: 4642:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4581:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4520:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3599:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 2367:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 1736:

Thanks for your research. I would be quick to remove the source if there were others but in this case there isn't. If removed, stuff about crowds would as well.

1553:

So, could you help me getting my review linked over there? I don't want to brag, but I really think it's worthy the reading, I just don't know if it's possible.

3044: 5612: 1242:

negative standpoint, as indicated by the reviews left in. While claiming others as unfavorable and illegal just because u don't like them. Bit of a stretch. --

4383:

Why do you keep changing my contributions to Alex.He is my younger brother and what i write is fact.Check me out on youtube under "oliver lloyd yesterday".

4138:"I didn't want to hurt your feelings. Your site is a completely unprofessional amatuer blog, ran on a free webhosting server - it fails WP:RS and WP:ALBUM." 1910: 612: 4448:

page. You said, "Removed unprofessional reviews. Sputnik needs to be a staff review. Blare is an ongoing promotional attempt by owners/users of the site."

1115:

subsection??? The Discography Infobox does not provide a field for them, so the link is showed at the end of the infobox and in the right place on the TOC.

3768:

The IP is continuing to remove those reviews... I have reverted twice already. Should we consider escalating this to get some further input/sanctions...?

3742:

The Spin rating is based on the rating of the user that are log in in the site and The Guardian is a community, so they violate the wikipedia criteria.

2191:

Hi there - not related to wiki sorry....do you know of any good Aussie Music Books that deal in early chart stats and sales? Much appreciated if you do.

5216:. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at 4092:

to take a look into his editing to see what can be done to end this nonsense. Anyway, just a heads up for you to keep an eye on these two pages! Cheers

2555:

based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards -

3291:

It's done. I contacted an admin and he blocked the page for non-logged users. So, that IP (or any other IP) won't be able to edit the article anymore.

5754: 5694: 5634: 5574: 5454: 5434: 5374: 5314: 4912: 4856: 4774: 4718: 4662: 4601: 4540: 3920:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

3619: 2387: 2973: 1046:, so I decided to include it in the Discography (but I'm not sure about that). I know it is the wrong place to put it, but I will work on it too. 735: 573: 4337:

Out of interest (and to possibly improve the interface): Did you make those edits using the rollback links in your watchlist, or somewhere else?

5140: 2417:

and emailed one of them a second time because he initially only wanted a NC license, so I explained to him why that's not enough and linked to

994: 5496: 5213: 4141:

You probably had a bad day and it's none of my business, but that attack on my own and my colleague's work was a bit uncalled for, wasn't it?

1225: 1198: 229: 157: 142: 3344: 3110:

So do other accounts owned by media outlets do other things than just add reviews that support artists? Because it doesn't seem like it all.

2619: 2612: 5125: 5089: 4975: 4804: 4395: 4160: 4038: 3961: 1985: 971: 3487:

Yeah it was a bit over the top, sorry. I really should quit this place, sick of the exposure I get to the stupidity of the common person.

1481: 5139:. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to 4080:

This kid is really starting to annoy me. First the constant reversions to This Is War and now attempting to overturn the AfD redirect of

3941: 2937: 2854: 2532: 1321: 1030: 5484: 3791: 3749: 2712: 2444:'s page. it states that their name is ocassionally spelled "blink-182." why wouldnt Relient K being written as Relient k not matter?-- 585:

I am asking any and all interested parties to please make brief, policy-based arguments as to whether or not the edit should be made.

4639: 4578: 2755: 377:

Yeah that sounds about right; I do think it's a shared effort, however. And that's pretty weird....about the CDs in Australia.... --

117: 1340:

Professional? Sure, we're not as large or popular as Rolling Stone or Blender, but that doesn't make our review devoid of meaning.

2413:

You're welcome. I checked flickr and there were no free images so I sent the two users a version of the informal image request at

1464: 1437: 1388: 893: 847: 4215:

I'm aware that flagicons aren't usually placed in the infoboxes for articles, but just out of curiosity; what is the reason why

3419: 3310:

Thanks for doing the cleanup, I'll add an image or two, Dan's drum exhibits the er, artwork for Artwork, so it is appropriate.--

2695: 5136: 5121: 5118: 5085: 4971: 3699:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 3251:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 3183:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2805:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1842:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1572: 1048:

Anyway, I will take all your suggestions into consideration. Thank you for your prompt and very helpful reply. All the best. –

876: 830: 793: 772: 692: 671: 5068: 3911: 5185: 3711: