This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Erik. 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.
I have been observing a great deal of sockpuppet activity in rock music related articles lately and this anonymous edit [1] by Special:Contributions/124.186.246.195 caught my eye. It is unusual in that it undid a minor edit of yours from two years ago. User:124.186.246.195 curiously also made this edit [2] to a seemingly unrelated article which caused some disruption and conflict with User:Bkonrad. If you recall, both you and Bkonrad participated in the Talk:Presence (album) move discussion which was the undoing of a long time sockpuppeteer when he unwittingly replied to another editor using the wrong sockpuppet. User:124.186.246.195 appears to be related to these IP addresses: Special:Contributions/123.211.70.91, Special:Contributions/123.211.141.151, Special:Contributions/124.179.170.87, Special:Contributions/124.179.173.61 as well as blocked users JohnLonnnnnn and CosmicLegg and his sockpuppets. Of far more concern are a number of other users whose edits are very similar but I don't know if it's kosher to openly name them here. This seems all too complicated for me and I'm not sure how to proceed. I'd actually prefer not to get involved but this sockpuppetry is so extensive I feel I should say something. Any advice? Piriczki (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the connection between 124.186.246.195 and the longtime sock puppeteer. For one thing, the articles of interest appear different. As for the other ones, if you believe these are new incarnations of CosmicLegg, you could file a new report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicLegg. I should say that despite my involvement with one sock investigation, I'm not of one the more experienced administrators when it comes to dealing with sock puppets, so someone who watches WP:SPI would likely be in a better position to help you out. Sorry I don't have better advice than that. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-charting U.S. music artists
The page was recreated after you deleted it yesterday, I'm not sure if it's a rework of the previous article or not so I thought I'd give you a heads up. -Falcon8765 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for bringing it to my attention. The new article is about the same subject, but is significantly improved. I don't think it meets CSD criteria as it stands now. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Paul Erik, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Whiz Kids (Book) has been removed. It was removed by 41.206.51.82 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 41.206.51.82 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Newsday
You mentioned in the DiMeco AFD that you found a source; do you have access to that source? It isn't in Lexis, so far as I can find, and it's a regional source that's quite far beyond my region.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Earlier we had posted the profile of Dr. Madan Kataria which was copied from www.laughteryoga.org and it was removed because of copyright infringement.
We are the owner of that site and now we have removed the copyright line. Infact anyone copy and spread the message of laughter.
Can we copy the text from the site again??? Or should we write new one??
Hello. If you need any more third-party coverage from reliable sources to meet the requirements for the Vacuity (band) article I have two more articles that discuss the free distribution and cross Canada tour.
Hello Randall. It would depend on the nature of the publications, but yes, in general the more independent sources that are cited in an article, the more likely it would be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so if you have more sources please let me know. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, RF, for offering some more sources. I have started, but will have a chance later in the week to incorporate more of them into the article. We then ought to be able to remove the {{notability}} tag. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Paul,
Your help and expertise are much appreciated. Thanks for everything.
Paul,
Many thanks for reporting the error DarknessBot made with the redirect in the above article last month - just to let you know I've now squashed the bug which caused this and he should no longer get confused when he stumbles across a page at a time it and its redirects are being moved around. ShakingSpirittalk20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the article "NGO 2.0 China Project" because (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://web.mit.edu/chinapolicy/www/aboutpost2009.html). I am Jing Wang, a professor at MIT, and the founder of china Policy Studies China at MIT, and it was I who renamed that research unit into a different name "MIT new media action lab." Please read my MIT page -- http://web.mit.edu/fll/www/people/JingWang.shtml and the following --
"Professor Jing Wang received her Ph. D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She taught at Duke University for sixteen years before joining the MIT FL&L faculty. She is the founder and organizer of New Media Action Lab (NMAL) – previously known as the MIT International Initiative of Critical Policy Studies of China."
Please check the two sites - they are the same site.
Please restore the article - so many grassroots NGOs in China contributed to it. It exasperated lots of people that you deleted it because of the misunderstanding above.
Ah. Well, I thank you again anyway. It seems that he was going to start alternating between his accounts that still worked. I assumed you were watching out for this vandal in some way due to how fast you got to the vandalism and the subsequent blocks you issued to his other accounts. I have no doubt that he will make another account eventually, but I suppose all we can do is keeping blocking him. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I'll do my best (whatever that is these days, considering that I am not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be; the very recent days have been the exception). Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
He struck again, this time as ICTMan. Not even long after this discussion. Am I going to have to file a bigger case against this guy or what? Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will take your advice. It's just that I have been doing that over and over again now, and was wondering what else I could do that might be more effective (as in last longer). But at least he is only attacking one article to make this belief of his a "fact." Before, he would target other articles as well. Really, I believe he is currently a 16-year-old (or even a 17-year-old) kid having some fun, but that type of fun should not be had at Wikipedia (of course). I appreciate your help on this matter, and I promise that I won't bug you every time he strikes again (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :) A CheckUser might be able to block the underlying IP address (if it's a static address), but I think that would be overkill. Meanwhile I'll add Adult to my watchlist too. Thanks – Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)18:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know CheckUser would be able to block the IP for a long time, but that would be overkill (as you said), seeing as the vandal does not typically edit as an IP and certainly not in an aggressive manner; plus, it might affect other people wanting to edit Wikipedia. And, again, I appreciate the help. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
hi
please can u unlock my page its Jamie_Forsyth or Jamie Forsyth with ever way u look @ it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-forsyth (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 September 2009
Hello there. I made a recent request for access to NPWatcher, but don't seem to have had a reply. The page says "If you don't get a timely response, feel free to nag an administrator" so that's just what I'm doing. I hope you don't mind! I'm a rollbacker and have been using Huggle and Twinkle. I've been trying to use Twinkle to tag inappropriate new pages, but everytime I try to tag one it seems that someone has got there first. I feel like I'm going round and round in circles trying to tag them manually. An automated tool, like NPWatcher would help me a lot. Could you please check out my stats and get back to me? ~~Dr Dec(Talk)~~20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Declan. I haven't reviewed editors for the purposes of NPWatcher before, but I looked over your contribution history. You have been doing some excellent anti-vandalism work. On the NPWatcher checkpage it says "...you should have at least 500 edits and a clear understanding of the policy." You certainly have the suggested edit count, and you might have an understanding of CSD policy, but I don't see a lot of CSD tagging: in your deleted contributions there are only two pages you tagged for speedy. I'm not sure if there is another way to evaulate your understanding of CSD...? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your concerns. In fact, to the letter of the law, you're most correct! My hope was that because I hadn't caused any problems with Rollback, Huggle and Twinkle that you might assume my trustworthiness for using NPW. If I go away for a couple of weeks and make some revisions with Twinkle then would you consider me again? (Please don't let me pressure you, if you want to seek advise from another admin, or just say no!, then don't worry: I would understand). Best wishes ~~Dr Dec(Talk)~~21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add the sources that you found. Someone claimed there were sources in the last afd, but never could be arsed to add them, and if someone doesn't add something, this article will continue to rot in its unsourced, fancrufty state. Sometimes, I think "Nobody cares" should be the new Wikipedia motto. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
hi, a user KWW is vandaliszing chris willis page by removing all references of his collaboartion with canadian marc mysterio and the song roll wit it. the song was massive in europe in clubs and sold hundreads of thousands of units on compilations. its part of his discogs and properly referenced.
im in a back and forth with this KWW whom keeps removing it after its been there for months. its also referenced in an interview with marc mysterio on the high profile news blog beatportal run by BEATPORT
[1] AND ALSO ON BBC RADIO 1 PLAYLIST [2]
This is the first time that the IP has provided a reliable reference that indicates that Chris Willis had anything at all to do with the work. I'll fix the fact that the IP can't format edits properly now that the information is properly sourced.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page you refused a block because the user was last warned last year. I actually went on to the Vandalism page earlier for something else and went into this persons account and noticed that they hadn't been warned since last year. I'm just wondering, if I come across something like this again on Vandalism Intervention page, as a plain editor can I remove that from the page as long as I explain why in the edit summary? I've only ever reverted straightforward vandalism from that page previously. I didn't want to revert it before because I didn't want to tread on any toes (so to speak) but I could also tell right away that it would be refused. --5 albert square (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, as a "plain editor" you are welcome to comment on AIV reports, such as adding a "stale warning" comment. I think that's a little better than removing it outright, but I doubt anyone would fault you for removing the report if you used an informative edit summary. Thanks for your work, 5 albert square. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Paul
Thanks for letting me know that. Do you know where I can find "stale warning" comment templates? I've had a look, can't find any on Wikipedia, unless I'm missing them --5 albert square (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure: when you edit the WP:AIV page, a box should appear at the top, saying "AIV notation templates"—you hit "show" and then can copy them from there. Or you can find them all at {{AIV}}. Best wishes, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the Wikipedia Vandalism Page Protection page before and I noticed that there were quite a lot of people refused page protection because the page hadn't been vandalised enough. For quite a few of the instances, I could've told the person that their request would be refused because of the amount of times the page had been vandalised. As normal editors, are we allowed to edit that page to add say the note template along with something along the lines of "this page has been vandalised twice within the last 24 hours". Are we allowed to do that or is this a page for the admins only?
Hmm, this one I'm less sure about, since I'm less experienced with the culture at WP:RFPP. I'm not aware of any guideline that says that only admins can post a "decline" there. You could try asking at the talk page. Hope you're well, too :) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, sorry if I seem snippy. Like I said, I don't usually notice if an article has already been tagged, and I think it's silly to remove the tag, say the subject is notable, and then just let it rot in its unsourced, stubby state. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I should have clarified that. With the "blatant lies" gone, there's nary an assertation of notability. It could've been G3'd just for being misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right about that as well. I really do need to be more careful with the tagging, and I can see how it'd scare away new editors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to do. I've tried pacing myself, I've tried short wikibreaks, I've tried everything I can think of, and I'm still way too hasty. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My intent wasn't to use AFD for cleanup; I had indeed found virtually no secondary sources in a good search through Google News. I think that AFD is a good example of the swiss cheese model. (Also, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we let articles rot for two or three years in such deplorable condition. Some parts of Wikipedia just seem like one big "nobody cares".) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Both the warning and the last edit the user made were at 20:40 (UTC). I thought it was possible that the user made the edit, saw the warning, and then stopped editing. Several hours have passed now, and the user has made no other edits. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking 216.25.247.245. If you take a look through my revision history you'll see that the same user is spread across 216.25.247.244, 216.25.247.246 and 216.25.247.247 as well. From comments on the talk pages it seems like this range is given to mobile phone users on a random basis. That might account for some of the weirdness of the edits. This includes stripping out all linefeeds from a section, and typing more text into the edit summary than they ever put into the page they are editing. Also the guy who complained about the unfairness of the warnings (in an edit summary rather than on the talk page), wrote "foot" where he probably meant "dont" - some kind of predictive text thing on a phone keyboard.
I think the action (block/unblock) should be consistent across the address range, as the bad user seems to be able to access all of them. Probably a block would give some relief to the other users as they wouldn't have to read any more warnings. There have been about 60 warnings spread across the four addresses. Anyway, that's what's going on! - Ttwaring (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that careful investigating. Since the previous block was for three months, I've changed the block lengths for all of those anons to six months, as the edit history shows it is indeed the same user. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey why did you delete that, cary yandle is respected by alot of our friends, he won the jedi olympics. A game that we created so if you would mind not deleting it again, thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.5.125 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The claim appeared to be a hoax, so it was deleted as "vandalism"; in retrospect it may have been speedy-able under criterion A7 as an article about a person that made no credible claim of significance. Articles about people who win a video game typically do not belong in an encyclopedia, when there are no third-party sources that have written about the person; see Wikipedia:Notability. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Grand Finale (American Idol 8), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Paul Erik! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
I see you removed the PROD on the grounds that "has been discussed in multiple sources including The New York Times (April 19, 1970)". Perhaps you would be good enough to add some of those citations to the article, which has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years? Thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Mymuddyyj
Hi. I'd like to ask you as the blocking admin to review this activity on User:Mymuddyyj. My understanding that a block (even an indefinite one) is different from a ban, and so the notice is not correct. User:Rasputin72 who placed the notice there is a newly registered account although the editor does appear to be quite familiar with editting on Wikipdia. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Im noticed that you said that you have been blocking this guy is there any possible way that you could list the users that you believe are involed with this guy on the SPI page that way we can so more evidence of this users history with more then one account.--SteamIron00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you deleted my talk page. Was that because you think I'm a vandal or was there vandalism on the page? I don't really know my way around here yet. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind note about necessity of adding references to the newly created article on Alex Greggs. I have now done so adding more info as well. Much apprecieted werldwayd (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.
Hi again it seems that Nintendofan5000 is up to it again there's a new sock case open. If you have any new accounts that might be his could you pleses list them.--SteamIron20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the heads up. You can find the other socks by looking here. From the comments at the SPI, it doesn't appear there's sufficient evidence to connect this sock farm to that other one. Regards, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the citing was from a reliable site. Is there a list of reliable sources? KOF :) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no list, because the short answer to the question of "what is a reliable source?" is "it depends." You can find further explanation at WP:SOURCES. What source were you relying upon for your information? You neither cited a source, nor specified anything in the edit summary. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there a record of what I cite? It seems like you have a record of everything. KOF :) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And BTW, it was by word of mouth. I can't cite that. KOF :) 13:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
im the guitarist
I've been in the band since we formed in 2003, and was in a previous band for 4 years with our drummer.
I don't see what's wrong with changing our biography, That old one was completely outdated. We hired an actual journalist to write this one.
Hi Robin. That text is well written, and I appreciate that it is more up-to-date; however, it is not written in a neutral tone that would be expected of an encyclopedia article, with such phrases as "the band has proven to be one of the most potent hard rock acts to call the ‘Peg home." Also, please understand that Wikipedia is very cautious about copyright violations. Since any text in Wikipedia articles can be freely distributed, including for profit by others, we cannot use copyrighted text; band bios that appear on Facebook and MySpace are invariably copyrighted. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul Erik/Archive 6 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. This article which you recreated has been deleted approximately eight times and apparently now the topic of the article is notable. The only verifiable reference given in the article is one link to The Independent that mentions the topic of the article merely once as a side-remark. The other 3 references are not verifiable for people outside the UK. Your comment as to why this article is now included in Wikipedia will be appreciated. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I really appreciate you asking, rather than putting a {{notability}} tag on the article. The previous deleted versions cited no references at all, gave no indication as to why the subject is significant, and at least one was a copyright violation. I did a bit of research, using my library's database of newspaper articles, and found that in fact there was a fair amount of coverage of this game. There is much more coverage than what is currently cited in the article, but I tried to offer a sampling of some of the articles that addressed the topic beyond just a passing mention. You're right, though, that the only one which is linked has just a brief mention—but I included it because at least it verified the "10 million" number. Moshi Monsters is often mentioned as a prime example of a popular online game for young children, for example by The Sunday Timeshere and by The New York Timeshere. But it's a suitable topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia, in my view, because it meets the general notability guide's requirement of nontrivial coverage in independent sources, and does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Your comment that the other 3 references are not verifiable for people outside the UK is not quite true (e.g., I'm not in the UK and I was able to find the references). Sources do not have to be accessible online to be appropriate reliable sources. Please do let me know if I can clarify further. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kent Glowinski. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. For Canadian music articles, I have found it useful to used Google's "advanced search" feature, where you can limit searches to a specific domain: good ones are "exclaim.ca", "chartattack.com", "eyeweekly.com", "nowtoronto.com", "canoe.ca", "canada.com", "vueweekly.com", "straight.com" (and you can probably think of other Canadian weeklies that would also be useful). Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)16:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
{talkheader}} + {todo|small=no}}
Will take your advice on the two temples (that being to use sparingly when needed). I will confess that I did little reading on the two templates. However, I did ask User:Moxy for guidance and he didn't have a problem with it. To be fair, I don't believe I told him I was editing the Canadian indie rock groups and basically putting the talkheader everywhere.
Paul, There is some sort of reference at Talk:The Joys of an OTRS permission to use the work. Personally, I wouldn't call it work but another four letter word. That is why I posted a comment on the talk page and didn't nominate the article for deletion myself. Is the speedy deletion process affected? Argolin (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I missed that! One of the few times I have tagged an article without first checking the talk page. Thanks very much for letting me know. All that said, the tone of the text is not quite what we are looking for in a neutral encyclopedia.... Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The article offends me. Some fan, or maybe one of the band members, copied and pasted it to Wikipedia with zero attempt to wikify it. It seems like the article is blatent self-promotion or posted by a fanatic. The serious banners warning and informing everyone of the article's non-compliance to Wikipedia's standards have been there for six months. Nothing was done. DELETE DELETE DELETE.
Right, although we're supposed to re-write it in a neutral tone (various guidelines tell us that deletion is supposed to be a "last resort"), if it turns out the band is notable, and if the article does not meet the WP:G11 speedy criterion... Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. But I remain steadfast; I am not wikifiying it. I did add the Wiki Project Canada music=yes to the talk page. However, I am not holding my breath for someone else in the Canadian music group to do it. There is too much other work to be done. Can't remember if I told you, but roughly one-third of the articles I come across do not have the WikiProject Canada banner on the talk page, let alone the music=yes parameter.
Lots of IP vandalism. I see your admin, and requested that it be protected -- they're all saying he's died. I've searched google, didn't see anything obvious. Thought you should know --Tommy201002:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul, when you get a minute have a look at The Laundronauts. I cleaned-up the infobox, categories, and opening to say indie rock. Not everything people throw at a wall will stick-if you know what I mean. Anyway, before cutting back the genre listing in the infobox and categories, I wanted to know the creator of the article. See User talk:Jaetoe. Is there some special banner or notice that should be placed on the article? Also, I rated it a C. Your thoughts? Reply here.
Later...Argolin (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks as if the user wrote the article first in his user space before introducing the article to mainspace—nothing the matter with that; lots of editors do that. (I do that, in my second sandbox.) The editor contributed nothing else, so one thinks it may be a single-purpose account. In my mind, though, the editor's credit on this photo is the strongest evidence we have that the editor has a close connection to the band. So it would not be unreasonable to add {{COI}} to the article. Me, I'm not a big fan of tags on articles (I might be in the minority around here on that issue) and generally try to clear up the issue myself rather than adding the tag—in this case, that would mean giving the article the once-over to make sure that NPOV has been carefully adhered to. C-Class or Start-Class I think are all right as an assessment. (I'd probably want to see some of the NPOV and OR addressed before calling it C-Class.) Genres are a tough thing, sometimes. When they're disputed we try our best to go with what reliable sources have said. Did I cover the bases, or was there something else you were thinking of? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No. I thought it was odd that the user page was essentially a mirror. I have not really come across may articles that I've had to rate so high. I'm still trolling around the Category:Canadian indie rock groups dealing with stub or start class. I'm at M's BTW and think I'll take a little break. Thanks for your help.Argolin (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You're doing some good work and deserve a break. I find it's helpful to mix things up a little, try out some different tasks around here; it helps in avoiding burnout. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Discography lists
Hi there. With regards to Jive Records discography, there seemed to be a precedent built against these types of pages. Furthermore the creator of these pages has been been loading them with bogus content (i.e. albums that appear to have no connection to the said label). Other successful deletions include: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koch_Entertainment_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sony_BMG_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/E1_Music_discography, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jive_Records_discography and included the participation of User:TenPoundHammer. There was also one for Atlantic but I wasn't aware the result or that it might have changed, and I think there may be another older one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_Records_discography. In the entire debate at the time, my biggest problem was with the Sony BMG and E1 Music lists because those companies are parent companies, and in the case of Sony BMG, one of the big four, released (or distributed) roughly up to a 1/4 of the world's music in existence, hence a senseless, terminally incomplete list page would be completely useless. As mentioned, the creator of those pages was also loading them with bogus content and was an uncooperative editor. Judging from the editing style of this new Jive page, I have every reason to believe it's the same user and that the new page still suffer from bogus content, despite the fact that such a list was deemed, at least at one point in time, to be inappropriate. Imperatore (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
2008 makes sense. I only took care of the situation when I began to notice in the summer of 2009, and I wasn't aware of the final result (I was under the impression it either got redirected or deleted). And yes, MrGreen is the user, as well it's obvious he sockpuppets with other accounts and also edits by IP. Imperatore (talk)
Paul,
I have been corresponding with User talk:Moxy regarding my set up of new category pages. I would like your thoughts on the Ontario category page below. Formated ok? The one line sentence ok? Something else to add? I wanted to (within the categories) be able to move to the top level Category:Canadian music down and around. Have a look at Category:Musical groups from Ontario.
Please respond here. Thanks. Argolin (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I think it looks good, and I like that you've been improving navigability within categories (and in See also sections). I think there might be some issue with creating empty categories (they might get speedy-deleted), although I am not a categorization expert—Bearcat has much more expertise with categories than I do. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul, hope your grammar is good. Is it: Musicians from the Canadian province of Ontario or is the 'p' in province capitalised? I think it's caps. Please advise. Argolin (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, do I need to hyperlink province? I know too many links are bad, but the category article page(s) do not have much in them and should not have much text in them. Thanks again.Argolin (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
In the phrase Canadian province of Ontario, it's a lowercase p, just as you wrote it. I wouldn't wikilink province, as it takes the reader to much too general an article compared to what they are probably looking for as they browse Canadian music categories. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Paul. I'm more or less done the maintenance on the musicians and musical group cat's. Again thanks for the input. Yes, I know there are three or four cats with nothing in them. That is my next task. If I don't find any, I'll ask User talk:Moxy for help and or posting a notice for help on the portal. Later.. Argolin (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul, FYI I have added the template {{empty category}} per WP:CFD#Speedy renaming and speedy merging. This empty category template prevents the speedy deletion for categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. It sounds like the "regular" deletion process can still happen. I posted a note to Moxy informing him of the three empty categories. Cheers... Argolin (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You should consider placing the Keep as the first word. When you place Keep at the end (as you have) it is not quickly noticed, and may be over-looked by another editor who is trying to determine how the vote is going. Just a thought. Cheers! Andy14and16 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the fun in having a "qwerky" style, but I stand by my suggestion, because, in the end, it is a vote (despite the PC that its not). Cheers! Andy14and16 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Advice on format for a category page
Paul, please see Category:Musical groups from Ottawa. My question, should I use bold and/or italics on the text. In this case the line "Music bands originating from the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." be bold? Should "For individual musicians originating from Ottawa, please see Category:Musicians from Ottawa." be in italics? Vice-versa, neither, does not matter? Thanks, Argolin (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If we're referring readers to another category or to a Wikipedia article, then the convention is that we use italics; that's for your second example. As for the first, I'm not as sure. In general we're not supposed to overdo it with bolding, so I might leave it in plain text. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks pretty good! I'll put some more thought in to it, develop something, and will be back before rolling it out. Argolin (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Paul please see Category:Musicians from Ottawa. It may be a bit too busy? I don't know about the {{Canada topic|List of musicians from|List of Canadian musicians}}. Maybe that template should only be used at the provincial level? Your comments... Argolin (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good effort, and thanks for being so open to feedback! Yes I think your instincts may be right, that it's a little busy. You're right that the template may be best left just at the provincial level. Also, please be aware of the guidelines around copying within Wikipedia: it's permitted, but it's required by the license that you provide proper attribution, for example with an edit summary referring to the history of where you are copying from. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not perfect and others may have great ideas for stuff to add or formating etc. Why not ask! The layout of this category page will be rolled out to Toronto + Vancouver. Anyway, the template is gone, and I linked the musicians. Do I post a notice on the talk page? I haven't yet followed the link you provided. I doing some other upgrades. Have a peek: Category:Canadian musical groups . I am still working on the musicians side. Argolin (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when you copy from a Wikipedia article, you need to provide an edit summary like the one I did, which includes a link to the article you've copied from. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Now hey, I wouldn't have known that unless I asked! What did you mean you liked what I did with the musical groups cat? The banner I added? I like the link to the stubs. Argolin (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I may have to voluntarily remove some items I have requested. The thing is, I really don't know which way is up anymore. I have read stuff on the naming of items at WP. Some of it is bordering on legaliesse if you know what I mean.
Renaming of winners to recipients is reasonable to me; that's not my issue. It is the other three Juno, MMVA and the ECMA. I am aware there are multiple Juno awards (and others) presented each year. Does that mean I am wrong to request a name change? What if next year the Polaris people start handing out multiple awards. Does the name have to change then? Or the MMVA only hands out one award? I am trying to bring consistency between the parent cats and their children. It seems horrible to have a parent:
where the first parent cat has awards, but the child does not.
I'm not sure what takes precidence. The article name. Hirearchy naming for the cats. Etc, etc. It's all making my head hurt! lol. Thnaks Argolin (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for my unhelpful response earlier. I like to think I know everything so I get taken aback when I discover I don't. After you asked me, I went over to the WP:OVERCAT page and the first section I jumped to (WP:OVERCAT#Award recipients) said, "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." So my concern was that you might find that someone quickly nominates the categories for deletion, which can be discouraging after the thought and work you put into it. I see, though, that you did not create all the categories listed above. I don't really have enough experience with categories to know what names are correct or most consistent but it's a good idea to do what you've done and get some input from the editors who hang out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. And, finally, I'm not sure how helpful it is say this, but: You will find many inconsistencies on Wikipedia. Some can be reconciled and some won't be; that's the nature of such a large project with so many different individuals working on it. I've always found categories rather challenging, so I hope you don't get frustrated if you run into some difficulties along the way. Best, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)12:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
At first I thought maybe I caught you at a bad time. But your reply was somewhat helpful in that you linked to two relevant WP articles. Have a peek at this conversation I was having with another editor for a truely unhelpful reply User talk:Redheylin#Reverted edit to Category:Canadian styles of music.
I stopped creating the new categories cause I thought I was making inconsistencies worse. Let's get them renamed then move on. But now: maybe not. I will use a different attack method next time round.
You final comment on the inconsistencies. Yup. WP is like a giant Hydra. Where is Hercules when you need him? Thanks for the little pep talk on frustration. I'll do my best not to add to inconsistencies, but it looks like I'll have to live with most of them for now and work around them. Thanks as always. Argolin (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. I had no idea the standards were so low. Somehow I had the idea that the standards were scholarly and needed substantial mention in reliable sources. I will definitely lower mine to fit with wikipedia's policies from now on. I was operating on a whole other plane! Thanks! Xtzou(Talk)21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I probably could have just left it out; however, it provides a more accessible record that another editor had previously believed that a redirect was already needed back in April and the dab page Dre was edited to reflect that. You still get full credit for starting the article, though. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem, glad to help. The IP was clearly stalking you because he/she had nothing better to do. I wouldn't take it personally as he/she could have picked anyone. It's a good thing you appeared online when you did because when a user makes summaries with "reverting vandalism", many Recent Changes patrollers will assume the IP is editing in good faith. I admit, I too had to check, but when I saw your long list of positive contributions, I knew that this was just another circus buffoon trying to be amusing. Anyhow, the IP is blocked now. Good riddance. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, if you have a few moments, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track/page with my assessments. I'm trying to wittle down the 99 in class=NA importance=NA. I put a lot of them there earlier not being too comfortable with assessing articles:
I find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale. Have you been using that table or something similar? Characteristics of a stub: "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition." Example: [4]. Characteristics of a Start-class article: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources... Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." The article will "need substantial improvements in content and organisation." Example: [5]
By those descriptions and examples, I believe you are not being sufficiently generous with your assessments sometimes, such as with your assessment of The Call-Up as a "stub". What do you think? (Please feel free to disagree with me!) Was there a particular reason you thought it was not good enough for Start-class? Thanks, Argolin. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I too have been using the Bio assessment scale. I found it helpful in determining the differences stub/start/C etc... I'll re-read them again and put a link an my page to it.
I guess I haven't been generous enough sometimes. I'm not impressed by editors trying to include notability by association. Band X has played at this/that fesival and have shared the stage with A, B, C, D, ... etc.
In the case of The Call-Up, reading the article again, I think the opening under the history subfooter is problematic. However, I think one editor was trying to provide context to the recording of the EP. We are agreed, I'll raise it to a start class.
Is it correct then that "content" comes in two forms: written and style (format/strucutre of an article, infobox, proper categorisation, etc...)? Argolin (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about your question here. I'm not sure I would have divided it that way, but I think I understand what you're getting at. An article might have high-quality layout and style, but be low-quality with its content and comprehensiveness. Even separate from that, the actual writing quality might rate better or worse than those other qualities. Typically an article will improve in all those domains at a similar pace as it goes through its stages of development... when it doesn't, it would make an assessment of overall "quality" difficult to do. (Sorry for all the links! You're probably aware of most of them.) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop erasing my edit to Jeff Danna's page. I am Jeff's assistant and hold the copyright to the bio that I submitted to wikipedia. I did not copy and paste the bio from any other page, seeing as I wrote it. However, other pages might also use this bio.
Had an IP (recently blocked, appealed, denied) who's been reverting your contributions as vandalism. I think the vandalpatrol got them all but you might want to check. Is there a known user who specifically targets your revisions? I'm wondering if this IP is a sockpuppet. The IP's contributions are here. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers! --N419BH (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with the cleanup. It's an anon who is apparently mad at me for reverting his joke edits to the Joseph Cirincione article. I'm just ignoring for the time being. But he seems to be unaware that unregistered editing from an IP address is traceable; his address is in Montreal, using Bell Sympatico internet. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I passed that information along to the admin who made the block. If he shows up again under another IP I'll let you know. --N419BH (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The New Republic
Hello Paul. As you're an admin, can I ask a favour in that you assert your authority with The New Republic article. It has been unstable for a few days now.
Scenario 1: A new user claiming to be the real Jason Zengerle, called User:Jasonzengerle makes his first appearance and removes a section of text here. I assume the edit to be vandalism so I revert the contribution. Shortly after, the user left a message on my talk page and explained his situation.
Scenario 2: Realising that the user is genuine and not here to vandalise pages, I decide not to interfere with the user who reverts me here. He has done this after explaining to me the full circumstance; he has also cited the sources to be unreliable.
Scenario 3: Since 8 May, a new user has suddenly burst onto the scene. He calls himself User:Seafood.mama and he insists on restoring the version damaging to the other editor. See his contributions.
Now, I don't honestly know who is right and who is wrong here, but I can deduce two factors. Both Jasonzengerle and Seafood.mama are here to push a single point with neither seemingly interested in editing elsewhere; I contend however that the former has been more approachable in that he has both discussed his proposals (on my talk page, and I have replied on his), and that he has not engaged in an edit war. It was I who on the last two occasions restored Jason's preferred revision. In all honesty, I do take umbrage when IPs or non-established single-issue users revert my edits. What is clear is that the version preferred by Seafood is the work of one single editor, and I believe that no other user with an interest would restore the information removed by Jason. I did explain to Jason that good faith patrollers or admins may take issue with his edits because sourced information was removed but that does not mean that those users are disagreeing with him. He may just be required to provide more information explaining himself. Seafood is clearly here to push a point and he has not yet consulted the talk page or written to Jason. It is more than 48 hours since his first appearance so he has had ample time, and his absence from editing elsewhere ascertains that he did not open his account to become a vandal fighter or a true Wikipedian. Jason has not edited elsewhere either but he has had the decency to declare his position from the onset and engage in discussion. To this end, can I ask that the page be locked to IPs and non-established users until such time as Jason and Seafood both discuss with each other and provide more reliable sources for both angles. Because Jason has been less disruptive, I also ask that we keep his version until either a concensus has been reached or a decision has been jointly made by the two opposing factions. In all honestly, I don't know where I really stand on this one. Thanks Paul. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
All right, with the idea that we err on the side of keeping material with dubious relevance and sourcing out of articles until there is consensus, per BLP policy I have protected it as you suggested. Might I leave you the responsibility of beginning a talk page discussion at Talk:The New Republic? Thanks, Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Following up on this, now that I had some time to look at the section of text that was being edit-warred over: The sourcing does not support that there has been any sort of widespread "controversy" about Jason Zengerle. From where I sit, removing the text was the right thing to do, as it was a BLP violation. (Sorry for my quick comments before I looked more carefully—I now see less value in the sock puppet investigation, as edits by these "throwaway" accounts can simply be reverted, and the article protected if need be.) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your work Paul, and if there is any way I can help, I will. Do you still suggest we open a full discussion on the talk page or shall we simply let sleeping dogs lie by keeping the page protected? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 09:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. I don't think a full talk page discussion is needed at this point, as I find it hard to imagine that any regular editors of the article would advocate for inclusion of the material. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul (and Evlekis and M.nelson), Thanks so much for all of your help with this. I really appreciate it. I'll send an email, per your suggestion. Again, many thanks. Jasonzengerle (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Jasonzengerle
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, but the copy/paste was not a copyright violation by any means. As it was properly authorized, although the tone may need a bit improvement as mentioned.
I am not sure if I am conversing correctly in these "talk" sections, since this is the first time I'm trying this so bare with me please. By "properly authorized" I mean it's authorized by herself and her record label who wanted that particular bio up, but as it does seem to be a bit promotional it will need some minor revisions to neutralize the tone!
Thanks for keeping the love on ice page I started. Contrary to the person who requested they be removed they have an gold album with the bill and ted sound track. According to the protocols set forth, they meet the criteria on many points, I haven't had time to fill it all in but they have been in many national publications, videos on MTV and where played extensively on the radio in the early nineties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugly92 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, no problem at all! I had actually intended to stop by your talk page and compliment you on the well-written article you put together. Nice work. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Heyy(:
Hi i am Jake chamberlain, I had no problem with the Wikipedia, infact i was quite proud. Is there any way you can get it back. I believe you had no right to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.113.11 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Paul, what a busy guy you are! If you have a few minutes can you have a look at Template:Canadian music quick links? With the exception of the group "Stub Templates", it's not meant to be exhaustive. Only the most common ones in use by editors. I'm not sure about the group "Article cleanup templates". I really don't use them all that much. I tried choosing at least one from each major section.
Are there too many listed in the group "Article cleanup templates"
Any missing from group "Article cleanup templates"
You are working hard too! Yes, I think there are too many article cleanup templates; the more you add the more difficult it is to select one, and you have included some that I have never seen used in Canadian music articles... did you have a way of deciding which ones are in common use? Oh, and you have {{BLP unsourced}} listed twice. Also, a list of tools that editors use (as opposed to readers) should generally not be listed in the encyclopedia space—so, it's fine to put it in the Wikiproject but not in, say, List of Canadian musicians, or the categories. At least I think that's the case. Have you seen a similar quick-links template used for other topics? Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was too busy. I more/less chose one from each major section from WP:TMC. My way of deciding the most common is to ask. I value your opinion. Which ones should be removed? Argolin (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for asking me. I wasn't sure if there were some statistics that said how often the cleanup templates get used in articles in general. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think so; I think it might be best to keep it to things that are more specifically related to Canadian music articles. But keep the infoboxes. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the group "Article cleanup templates". I added that group after running it by Moxy. I'm sure you know what he is like. He's just thrilled that you're doing someting :) He did not have a problem with the music specific guidelines. What now? Argolin (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, I just remembered I had a link for the Jubileeclipman on my talk page. He seems to be a master of templates. I don't want to put you on the spot with things you may not be overly familiar. I'll ask him about the template namespace placement and about the music guidelines. Does that sound fair to you? Argolin (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good! I was just going to say that the template should be removed from all encyclopedia space, which includes categories, as the template is directed at editors, while the categories are used more for readers browsing. I don't have a problem with the music guidelines being included in the template, though. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed it from the article. I'll remove it from the 3 or 4 category namespaces. I'll add it to our project. I'll read the the template guideline. I came across it a while ago when I was looking for guidance on naming the category namespace. (On a side note: did i find anyting? no! is there naming consistency out there now? no! are there big tree limbs missing from the categories? yes!). Paul thanks again for your help. Argolin (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Thanks for those updates, by the way! I also wanted to say that I hope that when I disagree with something that you've done, it does not come across that I'm discouraging you. You're doing good work, here. Keep it up! Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Lee's Palace
Paul, can I impose upon you to add references to the article Lee's Palace? I am looking to give the other Canadian music venues a similar format. I am not looking for you to cite the entire article. Just some, so that I have a good basis to go on. Argolin (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Paul, oh my! I discovered the cite web template. lol!!! I added one to the article. I think I'll be ok here on in. :) I'm having a Homer moment. I'll rate and assess the article. No big hurry, can you review the article and check my assessment?
On a similar note, there is a merge discussion regarding the Template:Infobox venue and Template:Infobox building. I'm going to add my two cents. There is next to no usage documentation for the T:infobox building. How can I agree to a merge? Thanks as always! Argolin (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paul, first off thanks for responding to why my link was constantly being deleted, and I can appreciate the need to keep things "nice and neat." That being said, why is the glee concert ticket site? This is a commercial site that provides less information than mine. If you take a look at the site, I offer lyrics, free videos, and episodes that are not hosted on my site. Please explain your decision to let that site stay and mine get deleted.
Paul, I need to call upon your assistance as an administrator. I can't believe the nastiness that occurs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. They have rules in place among them: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I was just about to post a follow up for a rename discussion [6]informing user Occuli that I found his "cute" comment offensive and to keep to the discussion at hand per wiki guidelines. The "discussion" is closed; the rename is done. I have complained to another admin for yet other comments posted. It's apparently a degree of nastiness at the CFD. I have also asked about the work instructions for the CFD. They are hard to follow and are not written in a form in what I would expect from Wikipedia. I even offered to help in a re-write. What am I to do? I am considering closing my account and walking away. Argolin (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Argolin. I'm sorry to hear that you are close to a point of walking away! I haven't looked into the history of your CFD experiences, but one thing I would say is that there are bound to be disagreements at times with what you are doing; if you do a lot of edits, it's going to happen at some point. I know that from my own personal experience. Sometimes people have been kind in how they have expressed things to me and at other times there's been some nastiness. Generally, I've found things go better when I reply in a friendly way, even if I feel like sniping back. There have been some times, though, when another editor's responses to my attempts to remain civil have just continued to be antagonizing; here is one example from a couple of years ago: User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 4#Missreading MoS. I needed to just walk away from that one and go edit somewhere else. There's also some varying degrees of helpful advice at Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Paul. I have decided to stay away from the Cfd group. I don't care anymore. I have lost all interest in trying to learn their process. I'll keep my account for now and do my best at Canadian music. I guess you can say my Wikipedia bubble has burst! lol Most of my dealings have been with yourself, Bearcat, and Moxy. I only realised that you were and admin last week. I thought most Wikipedia users were like you three. Argolin (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Erik. 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.
