User talk:Epeefleche: Difference between revisions

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question at User talk:JRA WestyQld2 - --209.195.183.213 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess that issue is dead at the moment?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed it on hold for the time being, please see my comments on the review page. Cheers,--Giants27 (c|s) 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now passed the article, great work.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the work that attends reviewing an article for GA classification, and being so good to work with. Not everyone is in wikiworld.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthew ^talk at 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that I have the necessary expertise. Otherwise, I would be happy to. Thanks though.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them because some of them were out of date, but if you want to update them for next week you can go ahead add them back. I like your suggestion for "ranking as of..." although maybe we could wait until the new rankings are out next Monday, since they will be the rankings the players will have when the ties are played? Morhange (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way works for me. I understand your point about things becoming dated, but the Wiki way in all infoboxes with dated info seems to be (one could imagine a different approach) to allow people to include info, but just require them to have an as/of date. Sometimes the info is terribly dated, but the reader can then see that. I understand your personal initial take, but I think that as far as these specific semi-finalist are concerned, that information is among the most interesting that readers might read going into the match. I may not have time to handle this for more than a country or two, but now that at least I know we have a meeting of the minds I will do that. Feel free to update at will. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the change was an improvement?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness dictates that I inform you of a mention I made of you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. I would think that a review of where the accounts are (and don't forget the curiously newly created "New York Hot Shot" who just left word on the band's talk page (1 of only 4 comments), and Mudwater) would address that, and a review of my edits would show me to be a productive rather than disruptive editor. As to their fight, has the intensity and tone of the Gore/Bush fight ... not sure what that is all about (as you can tell by my history of edits, thats not my thing). I'm interested in the conclusion (have seen the band, just as I read Holtzman's book, and liked both), but I would rather bring articles to GA status than spend time on debates.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Black Kite 10:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 month for violating Wikipedia's sockpupppetry policy, as evidenced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am falsely accused of sockpuppetry, because a user named “Holtzman” voted on an AFD that I voted on. “Holtzman” is not me. This was apparently confirmed by the checkuser, which indicated we were not related. I do not know them, and have not had contact with them. Indeed, their name and use suggests a clumsy user, commenting on an article (Scott Holtzman) by the same name as the name they chose as a username (which by itself should independently raise possible COI issues), who for all I know ended up at my page because -- as pointed out – they previously edited a page I edited. They would not be the first editor to follow me, and edit what I edit – in fact two users in the instant AFD debate have done precisely the same thing. Even their edits did not add to to the discussion; if this were a vote that would be one thing, but we all know that an AFD is not a vote, but based on thinking advanced, and that user advanced no new thinking. I in contrast have never been blocked for disruptive editing (until this), am a constructive user with years and over 20,000 constructive edits under my belt, a few barnstars, and a few GAs. While I have at times used alternative accounts so that I could have watchlists specific to certain areas (for example, one on “dates” to make date revisions, one on the “VMAs” for music related edits, etc. – sort of a file system for type of edit), and while my computer has been shared with roommates, and at times I have edited from their log-in (my sister EthelH up till a number of weeks ago when she left for Iraq; replaced by my new roomate Applegigs – but neither of them used the name Holtzman), I have not used any alternative account for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. Indeed, I’ve also taken care not to comment on any votes involving either roomate. None of my accounts other than VMAsNYC commented on the AFD at issue. The only indicated party that did do so is Holtzman, and he/she is not connected to me. I believe a look at my record will show me to have been a constructive editor without any blocks for disruption, and further that it will demonstrate that I am not related to the Holtzman editor other than through the fact that we have a revised page in common and votes on an AFD in common. I worked on the Scott Holtzman article because I read his book, which was a bestseller (so presumably I’m not the only one), and thought it great. Just as with others of the thousands of articles I’ve edited, it is not because I am Holtzman (as your checkuser will show), or the band, or the baseball player, or the politician, or the tennis player, or the criminal … I’ve just had reason to read about them, and have interest in them. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

Perhaps you missed the bit where the checkuser confirmed you were operating nine other accounts that weren't initially brought up at the SPI. Would you care to comment on those, since those are the accounts that led to your block? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Outside comment: The use of three accounts on the Best Breakout New York City Artist Award article - created by Epeefleche, expanded by VMAsNYC, further edited by Applegigs, also defended at AfD by Applegigs – is fradulent. It gives the impression there are three different editors supporting the existence and content of this article, when there was really just one. And it contradicts your claim that you used different accounts for different types of articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Only one account that I am connected to in any way (in the sense of emanating from my computer) weighed in on that AfD -- Applegigs. I understand that it would have been incorrect for me to weigh in on the AfD with more than one account, and for that reason and to avoid any question I did not then in addition weigh in from any of my accounts. Had I realized that someone would think that edits to the article would be the same as weighing in on an AfD I would not have done that either. (I would note that a number of editors, including ones seeking its deletion, made edits to that article along the way, so I'm not sure that edits by themselves neccessarily are tantamount to a vote against an AfD). I would be happy to just edit out of my main account from now on if that is suggested, to avoid any confusion. As I said, I believe I have a stainless track record, and I'm happy to proceed as told.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the only thing sockpuppets can be guilty of is vote-stacking an AfD. That's not the case, socks are used all the time to give a false sense of consensus regarding article content. Some of the U.S. political articles are infamous for this going on. And as the original Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive complaint stated, you also used your accounts cooperatively in establishing and exaggerating the importance of The Shells article, which was a blatantly promotional effort that violated several WP guidelines in terms of content (whether or not it deserves to exist) and was also apparently the reason for the VMA Awards article existing. I hope The Shells mean a lot to you, because you've pretty much ruined your WP reputation in trying to get that article in place. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. As to The Shells, I simply started thinking about the VMAs/trios/the Shells while under my main user name, and then subsequently when I realized that it would likely spawn an independent music watchlist that I would want to segregate in its own right I created a VMAs name for the bulk of those edits (much as I had a 10isfan name for a tennis-specific list, another name relating to numbers for when I wanted to bring edits into conformity w/the wiki guidance on dates, etc.). I didn't try to hide anything -- just the opposite; I went directly to the same editor (Mazca) under my new music-specific name when I had issues re starting the article, having contacted him just days before under my main name re the same article. My focus on Holtzman and the AfD are because those were the touchstones given in the block decision, which I was directed to read and respond to. And yes, I thought that (and perhaps this used to be the case) that was fine, as long as I was not involved in double voting, etc., and I was very careful never to do that. As pointed out by the checkuser, many of my accounts had no crossover whatsover. They were just my file system, spawning issue-specific watchlists. I see now (is this new? I don't recall reading it, but my reading was some time ago) that where that is the only reason, I should declare the other accounts. I didn't recall that, wasn't on top of that, and didn't do it. Am happy to now. I didn't in any way mean to influence any vote or consensus by edits of different accounts, or in any other way use multiple accounts "for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies", and I'm happy to make sure that doesn't happen again by either (whichever is preferred) never using additional accounts for such purposes, or only using them for such purposes if I make mention on my home page (which I only now see is preferred). As I said, I have over 20,000 constructive edits and some GAs and barnstars without a block for disruptive editing, and I have no interest in flouting the rules of the very encylopedia I worked so hard to improve.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the edit-warring and other behaviour involving User:Ethelh, an account that was used to continue your main account's edit-war, and whose behaviour even ened up being reported to the admin noticeboard at one point? Black Kite

• The "brother and sister" accounts have also had repeated conversations with each other on talk pages. At Talk:David D'Or#Awards Template, for example, Ethelh says "I gather that Epee and Afkatk don't like the collapse menu". At Talk:Ryan Braun, Ethelh suggests he might edit the article on Paul Molitor, and Epee replies "Please do!" Those only took a few minutes to find from a small sample; there is quite a bit of talk page overlap related to the Jewish-ness of baseball players, and I'd be surprised to hear that brother and sister share interest in the same players to such an extent. Dekimasuよ! 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per email, user agrees to stay on one account. Request handled by: Brandon (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied futher. Tiderolls 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No SmackBot is not converting any dates to pseudo-ISO. Although I agree with their limited use on the "accessed" field - partly since it is meta-data that should maybe be hidden altogether. Now you say there is consensus to convert pseudo-ISO into full dates, can you point me to the discussion? I saw a sniff of it over at Mosnom and might tie it into the unlinking of pseudo-ISO dates I've been doing. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies if I made a mistake, but how about this example of Smackbot converting dates to YYYY-MM-DD format?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Fuld&diff=313979963&oldid=312327062. And I see that User:Yobot is doing the same. As to the discussion, I thought I pointed it to you, and in any event I see you just joined it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on your side comment at Rich Farmbrough's talk page, I think a date format like 9/28/09 is a really poor choice for baseball, since it's records go back so far. Perhaps the decision was made by some of those Überfans who recognizes the name of every single player who could possibly be worthy of mention, and so could disambiguate the date based on who is being written about. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your point. I'm referring to the format used by MLB.com, the official website of major league baseball (not to baseball fans). It uses that date format in all of its articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'll just cut straight to it, block quotes are discouraged in this instance, it makes things trivial. The way it should be done is publishing their opinion in our words, backed up by an in-line quote - so we can maintain prose. Take this recent simple section for example. It's by no means perfect, but it gets the point across, provides quotes with citations and is written coherently. The problem with the review in question is that it is very brief, it barely provides an opinion, so you're going to have to suckle something out of it. Just give it a go, more info the better, I've watched the page so I can come around and help out later on. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very helpful. I'll trash the block quote.

And perhaps to shorten it I should leave out mention of the two songs were the magazine's favorites (then again, you say the more info the better, so feel free to let me know if you feel it best to include it).

That would leave me with something like the following ....

Seventeen described the album's music as indie folk-rock mixed with some R&B, characterizing it as "Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls", and gave the CD a favorable review, writing: "Why you should listen: 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!"^[1]

Yep and just wikilink the Dixie Chicks, etc. No need for the bolds, or even the "Why you should listen" part, that part is pretty self-explanatory. You could work that into your wording actually. Something like: '... gave the album a favorable review; saying that readers should listen to the album because: "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!"' I'm guessing Seventeen is a mag for girls a long way under the age of 17? It's a pretty simplified 'review', but I guess it's notable if they're the only publication interested in the band at this point. I'm assuming once the album is released more reviews will fly in; you might even have to scrap this depending on their success, it is a debut let's remember. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks for your help. Yep, Seventeen magazine is geared to people around the age of 17 -- it is the # 1 magazine subscribed to by college freshmen (ahead of People, Cosmo, Time and Vogue), reaches 3.9 million women in the 12-17 age range, and has the 39th-highest circulation in the US (22 million).[1]--Epeefleche (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yep. Thanks for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your input, and for leaving comments. The more the better I think. (waves from other side of issue). One thing is for sure -- we have managed to encourage many people interested in the issue to weidh in. And that is the most important thing, I think.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument gives undue weight to very recent events, and in any case, the doo wop band is indisputably notable, whereas the new band's notability continues to be questioned by other editors. The only real question I'd have here is whether The Shells should be its own disambig page or just head back to Shell; on that issue, either is fine with me. Chubbles (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, can you pls put The Shells on its own disambig page (I'm not sure how to do that; an admin took the step of initially directing the pg to the modern band)? Then maybe you can help guide me as to what needs to be done for the next step. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fight over genres; you can call them whatever you want, and take as long as you like (but I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and truncates "pop/folk rock harmony trio"). As for "modern", that is time-specific; we should choose wording that does not become obsolete. It's also very, very vague; "modern music" is still used to describe concert music of the early twentieth century. Chubbles (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Excellent point. If you could change it to pop/folk rock harmony trio (matching the article and footnote), that would be great. Thanks much.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your call, man. If you wish it changed, you've got to take care of it. Chubbles (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to -- can you pls direct me how? I've never done that, in all my edits as far as I can recall, and can't seem to be able to figure out how.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to change the name to something so detailed; per the naming conventions, article titles should be short and to-the-point. For example, Clint Eastwood would never be titled Clint Eastwood (American actor, film director, film producer, and composer), even though he is all those things. The title only needs enough to distinguish this article from others, it doesn't need a full description. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this with AWB in the past. More recently some of these phrases were entered into the list at WP:AWB/Typos. Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Tx. I noticed just now that there are a number out there ... fixed a number myself by manually. Same with a few of the other phrases (e.g., "it is noteworthy that" ... or some phrases to that effect).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Shells albums, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag, please stop proposing everything I create for deletion, and then appealing the non-deletions, and then "promising" to re-propose for deletion, and then proposing the related articles for deletion or merge, and then proposing the related categories for deletion. As to this category, it is appropriate--you're an experienced editor who I would expect would know that. Why jump at everything I create to try to tear it down? This has been going on for some time now, and I wish you would stop. If you have a question, why not try to discuss it first? But most of all, I feel that you are following me around and challenging everything I do, and that's not IMHO appropriate. I kindly ask that you stop, as its disruptive. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Written Roads" article is on my watchlist, so of course I saw when you added a category; if keeping an article on my watchlist is inappropriate, then guilty as charged.

I may be a somewhat experienced editor, but not with categories--I almost never touch those. So my being unaware of Category:Albums by artist is an honest mistake. But it doesn't change the fact that this album is clearly non-notable and you are clearly on a crusade to promote this band through Wikipedia. I have no interest whatsoever in your other activities here, I am only watching your activities related to this band article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that an editor has suggested that this be a keep, as part of Category:Albums by artist, where all albums should appear," and that you have in reaction withdrawn the CfD (which I thank you for). I would echo his second point: "The album will be out before this cfd finishes. Why the haste?" Really, I don't know why you are jumping to delete my work. But I'm trying to be a good editor, and make constructive edits. Where appropriate, I try to seek wider input as to appropriateness of content. I just want to make the project a better one. I've edited thousand of articles (many of them of people/teams/musicians/books/subjects that I am a fan of and that interest me), and made tens of thousands of entries, GAs included a few barnstars received, and just wish to be constructive. I'm not on a "crusade" to promote any of them any more than any good fan editor is--this is how articles come to light and get improved and ultimately reach better status. You have just been hounding me however, and I've simply never seen an admin do this. It interferes with my ability to edit helpfully, and I would again beseech you to stop if you would have the kindness in your heart to do so. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not interested in you and I don't care about following you around; I'm only interested in the article. Just like you, I am trying to improve the encyclopedia—I believe that letting non-notable stuff get in for free advertising is a detriment to the project. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the band is notable (and I'm not interested in hearing your arguments about why they are, as I've heard them over and over again). Don't take content disagreements personally. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag, I'm happy to work with you to make sure that articles don't have free advertising/innappropriate material. I understand that you felt that way. And material that was objected to -- including some material that IMHO was appropriate -- was deleted. I'm willing to assume good faith on the parts of all, and that's fine. And in the interest of getting on I've sought to move on. The articles/categories that we are discussing now I believe follow eminently Wiki standards, and have had input and been reviewed by many Wiki editors. I'm happy to work with you to make certain that they continue to not have innappropriate material.

My objections go to other matters that we've discussed that go beyond that. But I'm happy to work with you, and in fact would love it if you would work with me, and find ways to improve the article. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/GA1 were helpful, if that is what you are asking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Tx -- didn't want to step on your toes as the official reviewer.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. regardless of what you said, I am not sure where else you could have actually put your thoughts. That is a reasonable place. I am not sure where else I would look for other opinions, since it is not likely I am going to receive them by email.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. On your talk page, perhaps? But that would have limited the audience to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do this is to add the IPVandal template to your user page. You can the keep an eye on the vandal. 204.11.132.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do that script assisted date thingy? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment here, I've tried to restart discussion on the article's talk page. It's best to discuss the matter there in order to achieve some sort of consensus. If the discussion doesn't go anywhere, we might need to take it elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I am editing your talk page, adding a colon to a category tag so that it is visible on the page, and so that your talk page does not show up in Category:Albums. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you changed all of the dates on Chase Utley? The article used a consistent format and there was no reason that I can see to alter the format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining, I understand. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to the Daniel Glass edits were mostly to remove POV and essentially useless information (such as Glass' family winning a NN "family of the year" award) that was added to the article by multiple users with the same name as (and thus probable ties to) Glass' record label. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- I noticed that name and had that thought. Someone should leave him a note. But I thought the Billboard and USA Today articles (and the material taken from them, if accurate and not inflated) were eminently reliable sources, and so that material (and anything like that) should probably stay. Do you agree?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Those were possibly lost in the shuffle of my removing of fluff paragraphs wholesale from the article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take a look. If you disagree, feel free to revise or discuss. I'll also leave the editor a note.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (both). Some of the other material looks as though if properly sourced it could remain. I didn't take timne to look. Just left it deleted, and in my edit summary indicated that it could go back if properly sourced (I'm of course thinking of the more notable deletions, not the family of the year award).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the album release has passed and there has been no further significant coverage, I have re-nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well typing "revert vandalism" all the time can get a bit monotonous. -Phil5329 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stated explicitly that it shouldn't be in there, but I think it's generally accepted that it's not because it isn't mentioned in the guideline. All Hallow's (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about it here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#There_was_once_a_rule.... All Hallow's (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that - I'll fix it now so I look like less of a twit! I was commenting in different places on the page and neglected to sign them all separately. Oops!

All the best,

Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the discussion that you linked to. It's not about what you seem to think it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And may I ask what is the meaning of this? Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first message was regarding the AfD discussion. As for the second, looking at someone's contribs during a discussion is not wikihounding. Are you going to answer the question? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what you're talking about. Precisely whose AfD are you accusing me of disrupting? And precisely how are you accusing me of disrupting it? And precisely what are you telling me I did wrong, and should not be doing?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I meant to say disrupting Kww's RfA, not AfD. The point is that if you're not there to judge Kww as a candidate, but to find ammo in one of your own disputes, another person's RfA is not really the right place to do that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyway, suggesting that my looking at another user's contributions during a discussion constitutes "wikihounding" would have absolutely no basis, as I know you've also looked at my contributions during at least one of our past meetings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you not just read what I said above? It's not hounding. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is my view that you are Wiki-hounding me by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time you've done it -- as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.

One last point -- you deleted my header. This is my talk page. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you think to know my motives for posting a message? I didn't leave the message because I don't want you to enjoy editing; you can go on doing all the other stuff you do here and I don't care and won't interfere. I posted a message to ask you a question about an edit you made that was relevant to the current discussion—a question which, I might add, you still have not answered.

About your header: you have the right to do stuff with your talk page, but you don't have the right to edit other people's comments, including creating fake headers for them (for the specifics, see WP:TALK). But I don't care, keep the stupid header if you want, that's not the main point of this message. Nor are the ridiculous wikihounding accusations, which I'm going to ignore from now on because I know you look through other user's contributions just as much as anyone else does. Mainly I'm just looking for an answer to my RfA question which you have still avoided. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive. I don't believe I owe you any more response than that request. And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you shouldn't ask questions of anyone. I just asked for your explanation of why it's a legitimate question for that forum. If you don't want to answer, fine; I'll just keep on thinking it's not legitimate. You have your opportunity to change my mind, but oh well. I guess I tried. Not my fault that at every turn you have insisted on turning the discussion into a personal argument over how I have personally wounded you and am personally out to get you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Rjanag -- you're writing to me, not some editor who didn't read what you actually wrote, and may not notice the difference. You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you can't read. Like I already said, looking at your contribs is not wikihounding (you do it too). And apparently it's "inappropriate and disruptive" when I don't respond to your repeated requests, but it's perfectly fine when you don't respond to mine (specifically, my request that you answer my question, or that you not screw with my edits by making fake headers). So there's yet another bit of hypocrisy from the massive fountain of hypocrisy you've been spewing all day.

But by now we're just going in useless circles around each other, and it's become obvious that you either have not been reading my messages or lack the faculties to understand them. So I see no further point in continuing to respond to one another; I'm going to make an effort not to anymore. And I sincerely hope that after this AfD ends I never run into you again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]