→Bullshido.net: new section |
→Bullshido.net: re |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Hi, Mazca. You closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2]], and in my message [[User talk:Mazca/Archive|here]] I noted that I would ask you if enough time had elapsed for me to start [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)]]. What are your thoughts about this? [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
Hi, Mazca. You closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2]], and in my message [[User talk:Mazca/Archive|here]] I noted that I would ask you if enough time had elapsed for me to start [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)]]. What are your thoughts about this? [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I'd have no issue with that - it's been about eight months since the last discussion. Any improvements on the article have long since died off, and the sourcing remains very poor - I'm sure a subsequent AfD is likely to turn into another headache as previously, but the continued state of the article is starting to give greater weight to the case that it's fundamentally unsourceable due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you've got the stomach for another AfD on it, then by all means go ahead. ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|talk]]</sup> 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:30, 22 May 2010
List of nu metal bands continued
Sorry to bother you with a issue that I'm sure we all believed, or at least hoped, had been resolved, but "Sugar Bear" continues the edit war against what is a fairly clear consensus. His problem appears to lie with an unwillingness to even accept the term as legitimate (hence his now repeated deleton efforts [1], [2]) and refusal to acknowledge that sources say what they do in fact quite clearly sa, as you have already seen from the plethora of links provided on the article's talk page. In a recent development, they have also gone from using sources to make mutually contrdictory statements... this thread they argue a particular source is not relevant (despite block quotations to the contrary) as it is "about late '90s rock in general, not nu metal in particular", whereas here uses the same source as a reference work specifically on the subject of "nu metal". How do you feel that we, as a community of editors that have reached a consensus, should deal with this single individual that disrupting the ork of everyone else? Rational discussion appears to have thus far failed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that some of his previous efforts in regard of that list have been pretty seriously unhelpful, but as far as I can discern the protection-enforced discussion does seem to have resulted in a helpful consensus. The dispute he's raised now seems far more focused than previously, as it's just focusing on whether the two book sources actually assert that Hed PE and Incubus are "nu metal". This is a direct point that can be settled and has a right and wrong answer, rather than the previous unhelpful detours re: questioning the genre overall, and arguing about sources that state they aren't nu metal. If you have actual copies of the books in question this should be easy to settle one way or another... if not, I've ended up ordering both books anyway because they're cheap and this whole dispute has actually piqued my interest. If continued discussion just results in going round in circles again then we'll have to look into actually getting some kind of action, but I don't think we're quite there yet. ~ mazca talk 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please re-visit this discussion at your convenience, most particularly this section, but also the last day or two of discussion. Thanks. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not "making up additional rules". Everything I have stated goes by our guidelines. These two bands are not founded enough to appear on this list and should be removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
Great Repeal Bill listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Repeal Bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great Repeal Bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Might weigh in later but no strong opinion either way. ~ mazca talk 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see this link. Plans to block him indefinitely. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Rollback Request (again)
Hello, Mazca! I assume that you remember my (denied) RB request one month ago and that the community would just like me to be stable for the while. Since I'm editing regularly again and fighting vandalism, would it be necessary to re-add rollback to my account? I'll have to say, though, it's heck-of-a-lot faster than patrolling Special:RecentChanges with Twinkle. :-) Schfifty3 04:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
194.225.224.26 (talk)
You blocked this user. I believe this to be the same person who has been vandalising articles with "Arabian Gulf" in them under various different guises. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it probably is - but in this case his actions were just unambiguous vandalism, so there's no need to come up with further justifications! ~ mazca talk 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mazca, looks like more than a 31 hour block is in order. He's been at it again...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, looks like it's a fairly static IP so I've blocked it for a month. Thanks for your vigilance! ~ mazca talk 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mazca. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, and in my message here I noted that I would ask you if enough time had elapsed for me to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). What are your thoughts about this? Cunard (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have no issue with that - it's been about eight months since the last discussion. Any improvements on the article have long since died off, and the sourcing remains very poor - I'm sure a subsequent AfD is likely to turn into another headache as previously, but the continued state of the article is starting to give greater weight to the case that it's fundamentally unsourceable due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you've got the stomach for another AfD on it, then by all means go ahead. ~ mazca talk 20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)