User talk:Timmeh/Archive 6

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i got the #29 peak from a guy of a message board called ATRL.76.110.128.158 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your coming to my talk page and explaining instead of edit warring. However, "a guy" from a message board is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia's core content policy is verifiability. Timmeh 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

ATRL.net is the source. idk if I can post the message board site as the source.76.110.128.158 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Message boards are not reliable sources. See here for more info on what constitutes a reliable source. Timmeh 00:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone seriously screwed his article up. I gave up trying to fix it right now. Might want to check it out. Daniel Musto (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Article Greatest Hits, Vol. 1 (Korn album), is very similar to the page I have created. However, the Korn article cites NO recourses. The Slipknot article cites some. Why Exactly is the Slipknot article being deleted? CrowzRSA 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That Korn article may not be notable either. I haven't looked into it. However, there are no reliable sources proving the Slipknot album has notability or even exists. You can take a look at the deletion discussion for my deletion rationale. Timmeh 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Per CrowzRSA's request to delete, and your subsequent tagging of the article under WP:CSD#G7, I have deleted the article and closed the AFD. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Will :) Timmeh 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Tim, My name is Scott, I am a huge Brobecks fan as well as a Panic! at the Disco fan (Dallon Weekes of the Brobecks tours with them) i actually began my own page for the brobecks, but it suffers from a lot of vandalism. i try to keep up, but i was wondering if you could find it in your heart to help me maintain that page. you do such a kil;ler job with Panics page. Anyway, i understand if not, but i could really use the help.

Thanks For Reading, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factoidmactoid (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Scott. I'm not sure I'll have time to help you in any substantial manner with The Brobecks anytime soon, but I'll put it on my watchlist and revert any vandalism that I see. When you're adding information to Wikipedia, just remember that all information in an article must be verifiable and must cite reliable sources. You could also take a look here for more info on how to develop a good article if you want to continue improving the one you created. If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Timmeh 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Awesome! Very helpful! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factoidmactoid (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tim, I'd quote a source, but The Bugle is an audio-only podcast with no transcripts. What do you suggest? (And if I may be so bold, you were a wee bit snippy in pointing me to the Wikipedia guidelines.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougom (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please forgive me for linking to those policies. I saw your edit count and assumed you were a new editor who did not know much about our policies. I think you might still be able to cite the podcast using {{Cite podcast}} if absolutely necessary, although third-party, independent sources are preferred. Timmeh 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: This – it wasn't my intention to shuffle the order around; the intent of my edit was to revert the POV-pushing IP's addition of "folk punk", which is totally unsourced anywhere in the article. I didn't realize you're rearranged the genres to reflect the number of sources. Sorry. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed folk punk and rearranged the genres. I probably should have been more specific in my edit summary. No harm done, though. :) Timmeh 04:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've requested page protection of your user page due to vandalism. A8UDI 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

So fulfilled. –xeno^talk 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks guys. Much appreciated. Timmeh 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for your comments in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while for several reasons and WP took a backseat. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP. I have taken your concerns about the master franchise and have been working to improve my reactions to comments by others. I can get testy and have been trying to be more respectful in my interactions with those I am in disagreemnt with.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

My editor review page has been fixed. Would you like to be the first to review me? --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll review you, but I won't have time to do so until next week. Timmeh 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Long time no reviews. Hope you're having a good, lazy week off. Although I'd love to get some input from you on Is This It over at FAC when you've got some time. Also, what's the plan with 21cB? Found any nice comprehensive sources? RB88 (T) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rafablu. I hope you're having a great holiday season. I'll take a look at your article and hopefully will be able to give some input sometime this week. About 21st Century Breakdown, I admit I haven't done much with it in a while. I've been using my time off mainly to get caught up on other things. I'll see if I can find some sources this week, and I'll drop a note at the talk page to see if any of the other contributors know of any comprehensive sources we haven't used yet. Thanks for the reminder. Timmeh 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply