This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archives

1. 4/6/2006-8/18/2006 2. 8/30/2006-10/17/2006 3. 10/19/2006-11/30/2006 4. 11/11/2006-12/15/2006 (Contains Critical Mass discussion) 5. 12/18/2006-2/23/2007 6. 3/21/2007-7/10/2007 (long absence) 7. 9/29/2007-1/15/2015 (long absence) 8. 1/2015-6/29/2015 9. 7/1/2015-2/1/2016 10. 2/1/2016-1/3/2017 11. 1/11/2017-6/5/2017 (RFA) 12. 6/21/2017-7/30/2018 13. 8/1/2018-4/28/2019 14. 4/29/2019-11/1/2019 15. 11/2/2019 - 12/31/2020 16. 1/1/2021 - 5/31/2022 17. 5/30/2022 - 4/30/2023

~~ •S e an•gorter• ^{(T) (P)} 15:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe a person who reviewed me here would visit me at the shop! ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^(P) 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^(P) 03:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You should be! According to your edit count, you have 1800 < x (x = Article edits)! Should I nominate you for WP:RfA? ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^(P) 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am of U.S. citizenship, but I am living in Malaysia. Yes, my grandparents are sad that I can't celebrate thanksgiving with them, but I'll keep in touch with them (through email). ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^(P) 03:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Food back here is simply delicious. You should try food in "mamak stalls" (Indian shops). In there, simply say, "Milo Ice" followed by "Roti pisang". It is a delicacy! They sell it cheaply too! I must warn you however, Malaysian currency is "Ringgit Malaysia" (RM), and you can't change dollars for RM in the U.S., since my government wants RM to be valuable only in Malaysia. So you have to visit and change currency at the KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport). However, the people here are crazy inconsiderate! I just can't take that! Try not to honk so much on the road, though. And there are tons of smokers here!!! I just feel like hitting people on the heads! (Yes, I know in the U.S. you are not allowed to hit people unless you are defending yourself.) Here's something you should know: my dad is an American. ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^(P) 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed my signature. Unfourtanetely, many of my subpages have been deleted. ~~ •S e an•gorter• ^{Get a signature!} 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

critical mass (rock band)

Hi there,

I had our entry deleted. Our band has won numerous Christian and Catholic music awards in Canada and the US. We are distributed in all Canadian bookstores through CMC Distribution and have sold over 12,000 CDs, making us one of the most successful independent bands in Canada. In 2002, we played at World Youth Day 2002, which was attended by nearly 1 million people. Yet our sites are under constant attack because of our religious beliefs. Our site has been modified (sometimes viciously) on numerous occasions. Our band is considered by many to be one of the pioneers of Catholic rock music. Looking at the reasons people gave for deletion, I am at a loss as to why their opinions were given so much credence. I'd appreicate it if our entry could be left on wikipedia. Thanks for your time—Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalmassjohn ( talk • contribs)

Critical mass (rock band)

Here is the criteria for Notability

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] WE HAVE TOURED IN THE US. I CAN PROVIDE COPIES OF ARTICLES FROM WISCONSON AND BOSTON Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). WE ARE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES IN CANADA THROUGH CMC DISTRIBUTION, WHO ALSO DISTRIBUTE AMY GRANT, AARON NEVILLE, JARS OF CLAY ETC Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.) WE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UP IN THE INTERIM, THE CATHOLIC REGISTER, THE RECORD, GRAPEVINE MAGAZINE AMONG MANY OTHERS Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. WON THREE UNITED CATHOLIC MUSIC AND VIDEO ASSOCIATION AWARDS (Www.ucmva.com) AND TWO CANADIAN GOSPEL MUSIC ASSOCIATION AWARDS (THE EQUIVALENT OF THE AMERICAN DOVE AWARDS) Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. WE HAVE BEEN FEATURED ON SALT AND LIGHT TELEVISION IN CANADA. THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT CANADA THROUGH DIGITAL CABLE. THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT OUR GROUP ON THAT CHANNEL. WE HAVE APPEARED ON THE CBC, CTV AND GLOBAL TV AS WELL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalmassjohn ( talk • contribs)

Critical Mass (rock band)

I did not mean to imply that you deleted for religious reasons but those in the past who have marked it for deletion have made comments to that effect. I can definitely add more weight to our awards by adding appropriate links (can I reference other entries in wikipedia or do they have to be outside wikipedia)? However, why does the content have to be changed substantially (criteria 1)? I am confused as, if we can verify the veracity of our previous content (criteria 1), what can I do to change the content? Hope this makes sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalmassjohn ( talk • contribs)

Critical Mass (rock band)

Me again... it looks like I am slated for deletion again. I am trying to do all the citations etc but suddenly I find myself being threatened with deletion. I am not familiar with this whole process. Is there a "higher authority" to consult here?

Dave

Critical Mass

User:ONUnicorn/Critical Mass: IMO you have a strong position for a deletion review. `' mikkanarxi 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get to work improving it, and I think I will ask for a DRV once I've got an improved version together. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think our entry was deleted

Not really knowing how this all works but we seem to be deleted ....

Was this a final decision by the administrator or was it a random person deleting it? I thought things were finally turning around :-(

Dave

Critical Mass page done with edits

Hi there,

I made some substantial mods and additions to the page... what would the next step be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalmassjohn ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What info. is unsourced? The links to the info is provided. If you need the source in some special format, then stop being a dick and do it yourself. ABC News is pretty reliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.207 ( talk • contribs)

Responded on User talk:24.118.110.207. Check there if you have a dynamic IP and happen come back here to look for a response. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks much--that explains it—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.207 ( talk • contribs)

You're welcome. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The term probably has its origin here and is akin to the hacker term "cluebat". It's an old saying on Wikipedia that some editors need to be "whacked with a wet trout", in particular those who persist in being stubborn even when it's clear they're mistaken. I am told that the cabal employs a team of elite ninja who are armed to the teeth with aquatic vertebrate weaponry to accomplish this task. ( Radiant) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there was a discussion about renaming the entry... how about Critical Mass (Catholic rock).... how do we repost the article

Thank you so much for all your help. This has certainly been a learning experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criticalmassjohn ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Awesome! I'd love to join Wikiproject Redwall! So we do like the same sorts of things, don't we? We really should talk more, but I'm only really available on the weekends and Friday, and even then, it's hazy. Ah, well. I'll get back to your messages whenever I can. -- K-9 LVR 00:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch for an attempt to vandalize this artuicle. `' mikkanarxi 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a generic template for the article talk page, why not vary the template based on which clean-up tag was applied to the article? For example see the template PocKleanBot put on Talk:Bash. It says that "the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. the article has multiple overlapping problems. the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article" However, the clean-up tag on the article is for removal of excess external links, which the bot says nothing about. So perhaps the bot could read which clean-up tag the article is tagged with and adjust its talk page message accordingly? ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I shall implement this shortly - PocklingtonDan 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ONUnicorn! I saw you listed at the "one FA per quarter" thing, and was wondering if you could help me review Serial Experiments Lain. It's close to FA standards, but prose really isn't there. Manga/anime may not be your cup of tea, but just a superficial text review would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!-- SidiLemine 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn!! I've seen you're edits, and they're very, very appreciated. It's funny how many people can review an article and still miss the same errors!! About Lain, it is definitely the deepest, most headache-inducing series out there. Are you into animation?-- SidiLemine 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.... This is not dragonball. :)... Actually it's probably the farthest thing I could think of, apart maybe from Hayao Miyasaki's Totoro. If you like noir-esque cyberpunk on top of what you've cited, I guess you don't have any other choice than to sneek it! Two advices thought. With time (watched it around 20 times in all possible settings), I've found that opposite most, it's better appreciated on a PC set, possibly downloaded illegally, in a dark, quiet room. The fan noise is a must. Second, The dub isn't all that good at all. Be sure to have subtitles on. There isn't much happening on the screen anyway, so you should have no trouble following the dialogues anyway. Anyhow, I hope you'll enjoy it!

I just wanted to thank you for your contribution to the RFC on BooyakaDell. Just a couple of things I wanted to say in relation to your comments.

The sockpuppet issue is relevant - not because of the accusation itself, but because Booyaka's behaviour matches that of JB196. Now JB196 was banned for this sort of behaviour. I hope you understand what I'm getting at there.

The other thing relates to your statement that I appear not to know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. I do not agree with that. The removal of tags in the initial instance was not reported as vandalism - that being the first warning (the test4). It was a content dispute. However when Booyaka replaced the tags and ignored the notes on the edit summary - that's when it became vandalism. The ignorance was what caused the warning.

Now if you disagree that this was the incorrect method to use then OK. I was afraid - and still am afraid - of this sort of behaviour and the threat it poses to the WP database on the whole subject of independant pro wrestling. There are limited editors in Australia and New Zealand, so the obtaining of third party sources is hindered severely in the time sense. I am trying to preserve encyclopedia information that is important. The ability to prove notability and verifiability needs to be taken into account and as long as the research isn't original there should not be an issue.

I felt the need to respond to what you said, and as there is no way to do so on the RFC I had to do so here. I hope you don't mind. Curse of Fenric 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi ONUnicorn. Thanks very much for opinions and effort at the RfC, I think you have been fair and balanced. Although it looks like BooyakaDell will be banned as a sockpuppet soon, could I ask you to still request Durova (as you mentioned to CoF) to take a look at the RfC.

The reasoning - if BooyakaDell gets banned then some users will think this justifies all their actions, and if one or two people can still on comment at the RfC then this information can be used to try and make people a bit more civil and get to grips to notability/tags. The effort writing it up has gone in, so it would be good to put it to limited use.

Cheers Lethaniol 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Unicorn. I'll take your criticism on board. I just want to explain re the interpretation I was using re vandalism. You have indicated that this may be wrong, so just for clarification;

The nutshell is "Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban." Now I saw the replacing of tags - remembering that I did make the reason for the removal clear in my edit summaries - as intentionally making non-constructive edits. The policy also mentions "good faith" and I knew at the time that I reverted in the first instance that the edits were not in good faith - this was because of the sockpuppet allegation. Now OK that may not have been proved - although as Fozzie said on my talk page the evidence is nearly conclusive to the contrary.

Just making that point - and I would appreciate any suggestions should another instance like this occur.

I await the view of the admin, and thanks for your feedback. Curse of Fenric 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)