I prefer if you respond on my talk page; I will respond on yours. Please let me know if you want otherwise.

13 February 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go? Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi? Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football Crossword: Our crossword to bear Comix: Strongly
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello, Argolin! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I have nominated Igor Kenk, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Kenk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an actual reason why Wikipedia would need or want every individual band's article to contain a see also section that links to all of the portal template, Music of Canada, Music of Quebec, Canadian rock, List of Canadian musicians, List of bands from Canada and Category:Canadian musical groups? Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argolin, in general I think you are being very helpful, but on occasion you appear to be going a little overboard with your additions. To take just one example, you added ((talk header)) to Talk:The Ghost Is Dancing, contrary to what is recommended at the template's documentation page: "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page." You also added ((Todo)), contrary to what is suggested: "Please do not spam this template speculatively to talk pages, as it should only be added when editors are actually going to use it." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Any other comments on my edits? I guess you've seen enough of them?

Get back Argolin (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes, many of your edits are coming through on my watchlist. As I said, just about everything I've seen from your edits has been constructive and helpful. I'll point out some things as I come across them—some things might seem very picky, so let me know if you want me to stop. :) One thing I noticed is that you added Category:Indie rock albums to Sounds Like Zeus. If you click through to the category, you'll see that this actually needs to be organized into a subcategory, Category:Zeus albums, which itself would then be categorized in what we call "parent categories" of Category:Indie rock albums and Category:Albums by artist. See Category:Two Hours Traffic albums as an example. (By the way, feel free to reply here, as I will keep your talk page on my watchlist.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Erik, thanks for your help with the Sounds Like Zeus and letting me do it! This was my second edit for the creation of a category. I don't believe this to be "picky" (as you say) as categories are a strange animal. See my edit for The Coast Is Clear (In-Flight Safety album). If you were to critise my grammar in that article: that would be picky. I only realised there was a grammar problem after I had saved my changes. I spent a lot of time writing the new sections and past a point, it's good enough; save as is (it being a stub/start article). Anyway, I did ask you for your comments on my edits. I have only had my wiki account for a few months. There doesn't seem to be any detailed central statement (within the Canadian music portal) on editing. Such as these minimum things must be in your edit. Talk pages for band articles can be used as an example. I have had to discover/ask that Canadian indie-rock band pages should have at a minimum:

1. WikiProject Canada
2. WPBiography
3. Wikiproject Alternative music

along with the many parameters described on the relevant portal page

I love consistency and don't like coming across articles with no infobox, missing categories, whatever.

Later...Argolin (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicely done. You're right that it is sometimes difficult to find guidelines on what is expected as a minimum in an article. I've sometimes found it helpful to look at an article in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music to help guide my work when building an article from a stub-like level. I also tend to refer back to WP:ALBUM#Article body for articles about albums. Also, did you see my comment on my talk page regarding finding sources? Thanks for your work in bringing more consistency to Canadian music articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul, (can I call you Paul?) yes thanks for the info on finding noteable sources. My goal is to edit the Canadian indie rock category to give the articles some whiff of consistency and ensure that the Canadian music group is aware of the article (by means of WikiProject Canada |music=yes). Also, this first visit through the articles, I did not want to get too wrapped up in content. However, I have had to hold my nose a few times. I am drawing the line at The Joys. This is the first article I have not at least given an infobox to.Argolin (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, good find. That article is a copyright violation from the band's website. I tagged it for speedy deletion. Please do call me Paul. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your continued work, Argolin. A question about your edit to The Zolas: why did you write that they formed in 2010? I can find no evidence that this is the case. There are some news articles from 2009 that refer to them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A big guess based on their release and break-up of the prior band. I guess I should have put ???? in the infobox? Good catch!Argolin (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(It's on my watchlist because I wrote the article.) Yes, although we usually leave fields blank, until we can reliably source the information. (It's best not to guess.) Also, you can put 604 Records in the infobox, since I've reliably sourced that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there and welcome to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music...if you ever have any question pls feel free to ask me......Moxy (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Moxy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Moxy (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Moxy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Moxy (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably a good idea, yeah. I'm not sure I can even remember why it was originally done the other way in the first place. I'll look after it right now with AWB, actually. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably best that we start prioritizing categorization by province first, except for the cities and/or regions that already have their own dedicated subcategories (see Category:Musical groups by city in Canada if you need a list) — we can always recategorize things by city or region later on if we find that numbers warrant. My own personal rule of thumb is that I won't usually create a more specific subcategory than the province until I can immediately file at least three (and preferably four or five) articles in it, but that's just my own guideline, not a Wikipedia rule of any sort. And we can always rename stuff on the fly if we come across stuff that should be named differently than it is.

I killed the Category:Moneen category; we're not supposed to create eponymous band subcategories just to link the band's main article with their albums category. Generally we shouldn't do a band-specific category until there are a lot of related spinoffs, e.g. Category:The Beatles or Category:The Rolling Stones. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't personally have a strong preference either way regarding DD/MM or MM/DD style in dates, so long as the whole article is consistent with one style or the other — I almost always write MM/DD, but the only rule on here right now, at least for Canadian topics, is consistency within the article.

If you want to change the format that's in the infobox, the "df=y" ("day first=yes") flag in the ((Birthdate and age)) template can be changed to "mf=y" ("month first=yes") instead — but there's no obligation to do that.

For what it's worth, the "default to the style used by the first major contributor" really has more to do with avoiding revert wars over date style than with giving anybody special primacy rights; when we've tried to hash out a consensus over which style was preferred by the Canadian contingent, we split pretty much right down the middle between DD/MM and MM/DD proponents, so the only "Canadian" rule right now is that if the article is consistent in one style or the other, then leave it alone, and if it isn't, then pick one or the other and make it consistent. But it doesn't really matter which format is used as long as the article picks one and runs with it instead of jumping back and forth between the two. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's thé GG référence:

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=12746

Please Don't replu on m'y talk page

Ignorance is strength (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL....great job man Wikipedia loves you !!!!!!

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		I hereby award the "Categorisation Barnstar" to Argolin who has been dedicate to pruning, maintaining and caring for category structure, in the aim of helping it to grow and to better aid our readers. Moxy (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin. I was wondering why you've changed importance levels for articles like Juno Awards of 1996 from mid-importance to high [1]. I'm not sure, but my guess is the consensus would be these are mid-level articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my!!! I was about to rate them all top. There was discussion about rating it mid. However, at the end of the discussion someone pointed to the criteria for the Canada Project. That's what I went with. I don't remember anyone specifically stating "consensus reached" etc. At the Canada Project (which we are part of, yes?), the main article gets a top rating. Anyone nominated or awarded a Juno automatically meets Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles number eight. Further, just cause someone gets a juno, does not mean the associated article is high importance. I hope I answered your question. Do you need me to get the discussion to which I am referring. I wanted to answer your question quickly. Argolin (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm aware of this discussion. Was there another one? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian music/Archive 1#Article importance. The chart presented was a hey let's do this, we need some guidelines. However this comment seemed to be the most logical one:

This all sounds great to me; however, it think there is an issue now that the talk page template has been merged with Template:WikiProject Canada. It seems that we're now obliged to follow the importance rating guidelines found here as a result. Strobilus (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.Argolin (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, but Arctic.gnome is correct when he says " as long as you only have 1-2 top importance articles, 5-10 high-importance articles". With your new ratings, we're now ending up with way more articles in "high-importance" than we are supposed to, you see what I mean? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did the 1-2, 5-10 numbers come from? Nothing I've read has such rigid numbers. Are you hiding a Wikipedia article on me?:) I found no other discussions regarding Canadian music. Since I added another group's banner template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes, I read what they had to say on the importance matter. Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Rating articles. I do realise this is another group and that this group may rate everything Canadian low, yet the Canadian music group importance is high. This group should have more international examples. But hey, I'm not part of their group. Can't wait for your answer! Argolin (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul, I think Arctic.gnome is referring to the topic's importance not as an importance rating for the entire project. That is Junos. The main article is top; "1-2 top importance articles". The others get high. Again where did he get 5-10? Argolin (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those numbers just came from precedent: they've hovered in that range for as long as I've been around here. It's not out of any particular requirement, as far as I know. But I think the idea is that if we put too many articles in top- or high-importance it reduces the value of having those categories, which is to help editors find articles that are of highest priority to improve their quality. (Of course, we should probably just ask User:Arctic.gnome... ) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You put Juno Award into top-importance for Wikiproject Canada. [2] That's too high for that project. It would be top-importance if there were a Wikiproject Juno Awards. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul, that is our project (the Canadian music project). I read Talk:Juno Award page; no discussion on importance. Can we try to put this matter to a rest once and for all? Can you ask User:Arctic.gnome? I don't really know how to move a discussion. Wouldn't someone involved in such discussions have to post a note on Talk:Juno Award? Isn't there some sort of rule on that? Something like: whoever closes the discussion note "Consensus reached" and link to the talk page (if the discussion is not at the article's talk page). Argolin (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to move the discussion; I asked him to stop by here if he has a chance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To address your first part on numbers. I regularly come across articles that are not assigned to our project; and yes I give the article a banner. I've always taken it to mean that no one is really doing anything on assessing our articles. Maybe it's me trolling around the indie-rock group to long dealing with stubs and starts. So far as helping find articles to improve, the more high rated articles the better. That tells editors to improve those first. Argolin (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it this way....The rating is not what needs to be worked on but what is of significant s ..."Top important articles" would be the main articles (perhaps 6 to 10) this would be. Music of Canada Canadian rock, and so on for the genres ...perhaps the Juno main article, Hall of fame and the portal would be top. "High important articles" would people/groups that are part of and Order, be it Canada, Ontario etc.... "Mid important articles" would be for all junos winning albums, artist, songs... Low for all the rest, groups bands people, that have not seen any "Canadian Muisc Industry recognition".........Moxy (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, thank-you!!! I've been trying to figure out the difference between mid and low importance articles. The question remains on the high rating I've assigned to the Juno Awards by year articles. Argolin (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any sub article would always be rated lower then its parent article!..AS obviously the main article - with out it there would be no sub articles!! Moxy (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, I'm going to guess your hesitation at saying "yes" they are all high rated is due to:

1. There are no such hard-and-fast rules for wikipedia. It depends.
2. There was one year Junos were not awarded: there is a redirect in place now and it's rating is NA. I believe there should be an article created stating why there was no ceremony that year. If such an article is created, it's rating would have to be low.
3. You haven't actually read them all (no critisism implied). I went through them assessing them for quality. The last few years have some meat, but the earlier ones nothing. Here's the date of the ceremony, it took place here, these are the nominees, these are the award recipients. I rated such "list" type articles as stub. Get back... Argolin (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An articel on y it was not hled would be great,,i will help too....You are free to do what you like ..I promote Be bold concept ...I do things then if someone has a problem with it, I talk about it.. If you think high is best do it..i dont mind at all, however if other disagree you - you must prove your point to them and the come to a consensus!...So i say be bold ..i have not dough you only wish to do right by Wikipedia and its readers!!  : ) ...Moxy (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see -->Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian music#Portal question....your bud!! Moxy (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look does this sound neutral ...i just have to make sure -> ... :) !!
Moxy (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with it... Are you sure about the portal thing? I can put quite a few there that are missing... Thanks Moxy oh I never knew you were a band. lol... Argolin (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add away!!! Try to make them relivent -->Template:Random portal component...Moxy (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, Eric's Trip? Isn't there some rule(guideline whatever) out there that once a band is featured at a portal, it's importance rating is increased? Get back... Argolin (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO its actually the opposit ...Portals should feature the best articles we have GA and FA ones ..regardless of importance ..if you think an articel should be higher on the scale ..change it...it can have differ levels for each group is part ..so say Under the punk project it could be high - but for Canada it could be mid... .. AS for our portal we just dont have alot of GA or FAs so we make do!!...Moxy (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use this alot for all kinds of things!!...unclick all but template search there If found ...Template:Catmore  :) :) ...Moxy (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. If it is something weird I'm looking for I go to the advanced search options. But this is going on my user page!

When doing the portal we have to do all 4 at the same time or it will not be even....Moxy (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what do you mean? 4 users at the same time trying to modify the portal? Argolin (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

all done... there are four sections Song, article, album, and bio...we need to do all 4 at the same time ...so that the layout works..so we can have it all nice and even...All done!!.Moxy (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call me a little dense. Do you mean there has to be the same number of Songs, articles, albums, and bio's on the portal for the portal to work? Argolin (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK as you can see there is 4 section one called Selected Song one called Selected Article one called Selected album and one called Selected bio.............So if you just keep filling the Selected song one The layout will be all messed up.....PLS could just hold off for a day or 2 i am in the middle of trying to get the portal to FA level.... WE cant have Album covers or info that is not liked to a good article! Moxy (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, I was gonna ask about that also. I referenced a Canadian compilation album unknown to WP. I'll withdraw it 'till later...

You can see when its over here --->Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates...Moxy (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Moxy, didn't know we can't have album covers in the Songs, articles, albums, and bio's section. Argolin (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, I have one thing left I think: Category:Music schools in Canada should be moved under Category:Music organizations based in Canada. I have to look into how everyone else deals with their music schools ie Category:Australian music , Category:American music, Category:British music. Argolin (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me!!..Moxy (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Yanks have their music schools under Category:Music education in the United States. The Auzzies have music schools under their parent Category:Australian music but don't have a music organizations in Austrailia. I'll move the Category:Music schools in Canada from Category:Canadian music to it's new home under Category:Music organizations based in Canada. I'm sure you saw Category:Portal-Class Canadian music articles tied to Category:Canadian music? Argolin (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done moved Category:Music schools in Canada.

---> Click here...[3] all the articles!!Moxy (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, I just added another 163 canadian music categories to my list. I've requested a bot go through to add the WP Canada project music=yes template (to the talk page of course). Also, for the bot to add the ((Portal|Music of Canada|Tower-wireless-can.png)) to the category page. A bot user ansered my call and generated a list of Canadian music categories for me to look at. I know the list isn't complete, but I'll add more to my watchlist when I start on the maintenance. Once I have a complete list, I'll let you know (unless you want it now). Argolin (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((MofC1 portal)) ((MofC2 portal))... just need to add ((MofC2 portal))

Can you send a message when you're done? I'll go elsewhere!!! I have to fix the Category links at the bottom of the Portal and Project pages. Thanks...

Ha ha [4] No hard feelings! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, of course not!!! I guess you just wanted another set of eyes on it? I thought it was odd that you didn't assign everything. We can keep this arrangement going if you like. Keep assigning things to both quality NA and importance NA. Let me know...

Sure, I just don't think I should be both an author and a quality-assessor of an article, as that's kind of a conflict of interest. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you'd like to create a hidden project subcategory for "Canadian musical groups missing by-province or by-city categorization", that might be appropriate — but we really shouldn't file bands directly in Category:Music of Canadian subdivisions, or file them in both Category:Canadian musical groups and one of its genre subcategories at the same time, as a substitute. The former is using that category for a purpose that doesn't actually fit the way it's named, and the latter goes against WP:SUBCAT. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bearcat, thanks very much for the advice. I try to be careful when setting up new cats (more isn't necessarily better). I put notes and banners on the Category:Music of Canadian subdivisions and then realised that Category:Canadian musical groups might be a source of confusion. I then edited that group, then I was confused! lol. I'll read the WP:DUPCAT right now. I'll look into how some of the other groups handle this (Australians, Europe, Americans) and come up with something. Can I pass it by you first or, if your too busy, is there a discussion forum for this sort of thing? Please let me know. Thanks again... Argolin (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain I have partially reverted this edit because it adds a parent category (Category:Canadian record labels) as well as a category tree for a category that only has two subcategories (which themselves have no other subcategories.) If you want to revert or explain something that I just don't understand, please post to my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see my edit summary wasn't clear so I thought I'd leave a message here to clarify why I removed it. Such tags are used on Wikipedia maintenance or hidden categories: you do not have the right to create a category such as Category:Canadian music managers and apply this tag to it to safeguard it from the normal review processes that all categories face, namely, the right of any editor to nominate it for deletion, renaming or merging, per WP:OC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shawn, thanks for your post. I wasn't trying to circumvent the normal review process. I created the category while doing an edit on Jake Gold. To me, his "Canadianness" is somewhat dubious. I didn't want the category to be emptied if another editor removed him from Category:Canadian music managers. Can you:

1. update the template documentation Template:Empty category (and the banner itself, if you and those responsible for it think necessary)?
2. is there any particular section of the WP:OC you can point to? Argolin (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read WP:OC? A near-empty category would raise an obvious flag for WP:OC#SMALL. But I don't think you need to worry about it, as there is an existing talent/music manager category tree for other countries. Just be sure not to use the empty category banner in this way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent: thanks for the exact link. I modelled the Canadian cat on the others (and assumed it was correct to do). I discovered the banner when I filled in the cat tree under Category:Music of Canadian subdivisions. At the time, I wasn't really sure I should be adding oodles of cats. Why wasn't a more expierienced editor doing it? Category:Musical groups from Yukon and Category:Musical groups from the Northwest Territories both have the empty banner. Are you sure the banner is not necessary? I read something (sorry no link) that newly created categories are automatically deleted after 72 hours if empty. Argolin (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you create a category, I recommend take a few minutes and populate it with at least a few articles or subcategories, then use the ((popcat)) tag, which will invite others to add content to the category. I wasn't aware of the 72 hour rule, but then it's all the more reason for you to find articles for the categories you've created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is better to keep "Quebec record labels" because they do not necessarily have something to do with "French", they have only in common to be based in Quebec. Obviously, most produce some records intended for Quebec's cultural market. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your post. I knew it would be a hot topic for a rename. As I said in the entry for the CfD, I just want clairity. Is the category cultural or location? Argolin (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's like any other territory with a human population in it. There is territory. It is inhabited by humans. Over time, these humans build a specific culture tied to the territory... ;-) Seriously, if the record label is based in Quebec, then it is a Quebec record label. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's my point. It's parent cat (which I recently created) is a genre category not a location specific category. Yes? Argolin (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is definitely not a genre category (either as "Quebec" or "French Canadian"). I would not advise making it a subcategory of your parent genre category. What is the purpose of all the category renaming btw? (A location category structure could very well co-exist with a genre category structure. No?) -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think converting the category into a list would satisfy everyone? I think there is a user that is maintaining Quebec music lists. Why not one more? See: List of Anglo-Quebecer musicians. Argolin (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is everyone? I am afraid I am not following your reasoning at all. Can't you just create your genre-based categories of music from Canada and leave the existing territorial structures? The number of items in the Quebec record labels category is not that great. Btw, I see that you worked on the Portal:Music of Canada. It looks great. Would you be willing to work on a comparable Portal:Music of Quebec with me? I can help translate from French. Comparing fr:Catégorie:Musique québécoise with Category:Quebec music shows how much work there is to do in this area (like so many other areas!). -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mathieu, I'm responding to your post now. Meanwhile you have got to check out the article for Lisa Lavie. I have been busy trying to empty the category Category:Unassessed Canadian music articles. To date, all articles have been stub/start low/medium. Her article was unassessed and clearly not start or medium. She must be big in Montreal? Argolin (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your portal question: Mais oui!!! I have followed your link kindly provided to the french wiki. Can't the english wiki have the same? Is that the point? Hope so!!! I will take your transation advice (I'm not as good as I think). Argolin (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you for noticing the work on Category:WikiProject Canadian music. I really didn't think anyone else was paying attention!!! The big crime (other than separating the portal stuff from the project) was that I had to link this category to Category:Canadian musicArgolin (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must admit my ignorance: I had never heard of Lisa Lavie until now. I hope all independent artists get an article as good as her's one day though! ;-) Yes, the point would be improve all Quebec-related music articles in English so they are more or less on par with what is available (and keeps improving) in French. A good and easy first step would be to list all articles for which there is something in French and not in English and vice versa. I recently bought a couple books on the history of music in Quebec (one specifically on the history of music in New France, the other is like a timeline from the origins of the colony until now). At some point, I hope to produce a Timeline of music in Quebec and a History of music in Quebec from it. But let's not get too excited: I haven't even read the books yet! ;-) Improving Category:Quebec music is something we can work on now... We'll see if there is enough articles for a portal while we do this I guess.

I never said she was indie. Did I miss that? I was overwhelmed by all the content and the discussion threads regarding her article. I think the article is FA? I don't know; I've never had to assess one!!! I've never heard of her before either. Sorry, I assumed you lived on the island of Montreal (or in the Townships) and would know Lisa Lavie lol :)

Speaking of portals, the Portal:New France is not listed as part of the "Related portals" on either the Portal:Quebec or Portal:Canada... but it is there on the Portal:United States! ?!? I would fix it myself on both, but I suspect that removing one portal for another is tricky... -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surprise: I was just there at the Portal:Quebec. I linked the WProject category Quebec to the category Quebec. What a novel idea!!! lol. Unfortunately, all they have is a template listing of items under their category tree (completeness?). They're probably the most sane of the bunch and created their own template to deal with the categories 'cause when you look, they do not appear sorted alphabetically (or in any manner at all!!!). I'll add the Portal:New France to the Quebec one. I just remembered. I can produce one on demand:

My most important mission: there is a big rename underway for albums/songs/ep's. Is Quebec included? no. I can swear in Quebec French and English. I have to go now and add Quebec to this renaming project. Argolin (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argolin (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the best thing we can do at this point is to list French-language articles concerning Quebec musicians/bands for which there currently are no English Wikipedia articles. Maybe on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music's task list (as a sub-page focused on translation)? What do you think? -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A separate page all to yourself? Maybe/maybe not. This is such a coincidence because one of my pet peeves about the Canadian music project is the task list. Some items are specific (ie follow this link for a list of unreferenced BLP articles, or follow this link for a list of music articles needing a photograph). Others are too big of a to-do or not clear. I believe we need a more specific coordinated approach. I need to visit other projects (not necessarily music ones) to find how they organise their to-do's / work / task lists. Do you have any thoughts?

At the very least, we can add a section to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Attention needed. I'll do that for you later. I haven't seen any posting on the project's discussion page looking for other translators. I think you need to sign up to the project! I thought you were a member. Welcome! Go over the member list. Some members have indicated they are bi-lingual! Reply here please. I have more questions for you. Argolin (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is one possible way to do it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec/Tasks. The guy who started the English Portal:Quebec / Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec has given up contributing for the moment. I guess I am the one supposed to maintain it, but I keep myself busy with a lot of various article projects in French and English. I am more of a contents person than an organizer... ;-) The Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Attention needed page might be a good place to invite French-English translators to discover/pay attention to French articles for which there is nothing in English (and vice versa). -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mathieu, I'm not the project's admin. Moxy is. Did you see my userid all over the project/portal pages? I was organising everything. I separated the portal stuff from the project stuff: Category:Music of Canada portal and Category:Music of Canada selected content was all lumped in to Category:WikiProject Canadian music.

See my sandbox page: User:Argolin/sandbox2. I'm more of an organiser! I think I'm going to like working with you! :) Reply here please. I have another question for you. Argolin (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, so I should ask Moxy if he wants to add a translations section somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music? And what is the question you want to ask me? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a translation space is a great idea. Don't get me wrong. You might not get that many takers is all. Don't be discouraged. It may also take some time to get interest. The portal and project pages have been improved greatly since I signed up a few months back. Argolin (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look like we did it ..getting the first Canada portal to FA level...We just have to wait for the head guy to see the review (hopefully within this week) ( this took since JAn to do lol)... : ) so i will let you know --> see Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates...I am now going to do the Main Canada one its listed there now...In time i want to have all the Canada portals to FA level..I will be asking you for help in this..as your good with the DYK section and the more modern things!!Moxy (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great news! I was checking periodically to see if it came through. What did I do for the DKY? Sure I'll help. From a category POV, I think it would be better to start with the sub projects. It's somewhat criminal :) as to the number of Canadian categories I've either had to add a link to the Canadian music project and/or link from the Canada music project to various other branches of the Canada project. That's just my two cents. I'll of course help in whatever project/portals you choose. Argolin (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Musical groups from Yukon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I just noticed your thread on Good Old Factory's talk page. I'm sorry I've upset you. I can see you're doing a lot of great work, especially on Canadian music. Re the empty category thing: rather than being upset with me that I nominated it for deletion I hope you'll see that I could have placed a speedy delete tag on it. I did not, in the hopes that others might be able to do what I could not: find articles for category. I remind you, I also placed a please-populate tag. The Canadian football rename is a minor issue: I think it's a fine idea for a category, I love Canadian football. The name just needs to be tweaked a little to follow naming guidelines. And and the IMDB-only tag is not "getting it ready for deletion," far from it. In fact, it's a very new tag that I started using in place of the "unreferenced" tag, because apparently the community will be making more announcements in the future regarding the status of IMDB as a reference. So it's more of a recognition that IMDB has some role to play as a reference... maybe. We'll see. Anyway, I'm going to avoid making any further edits related to your articles from hereon, as you clearly don't want my help and in fact see what I'm doing as aggressive and "stalking." Sorry about that. Goodbye, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your great as this cat stuff.. I added your cool idea to here ...change this at will /update it add more etc!!! what ever helps people find shit fast!!!!!!

Moxy, I glad you like. It drives me bannans when I can't find stuff! Argolin (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That idea came from the Category:Canadian school stubs. I've been waiting patiently for a week for the stub group to approve my reqest for a new category: Category:Canadian music stubs Argolin (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember i said i might need your help at some point....take a look here -->Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Music task force they are bran-new...I have offered them some help...i also said i had a friend that could do things to!!! : ) lets se waht they say!! ...Moxy (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks I have three responses: First, I do not think there is a clear rationale for Category:Soundtracks and Category:Soundtrack albums. Second, I am going to change back my CfD for the time being, because third I plan on bringing the former two categories to CfD themselves. Once some kind of standard has been established--e.g. Category:1951 soundtracks vs. Category:1951 soundtrack albums or Category:David Byrne soundtracks vs. Category:David Byrne soundtrack albums--then we can change this one instance as necessary. Please post on my talk if you need me to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops I thought that you amended the entry I made; I was mistaken. Disregard part two from above, but retain parts one and three. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't your first point self-evident? I don't understand why you are telling me this. My issue in the CfD discussion post was to bring to everyone's attention that we have yet a third category (to deal with at a later date), and to provide an explaination as to why this Canadian category was missed.

Your third point: a merge or delete?

Isn't this post one big point?: you realise that the naming structure is "XXXX albums by artist nationality". We can't include "albums" in this renaming yet: there are at least three parents to be investigated, and many children. Argolin (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I guess somewhere along the way I got confused. I will suggest merging Category:Soundtrack albums into Category:Soundtracks. I don't understand the last bit that you have there: "there are at least three parents to be investigated, and many children"--which three parents...? I'm not trying to be dense here, I guess it just comes naturally. Please respond on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see here Does this address your question sufficiently? Please post on my talk again if I'm missing something here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay Please see here. Does this address your question? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nastiness? I'm sorry that you think that CfD is a place with a lot of nastiness and I hope that you don't think I've contributed to it. For what it's worth, I take your contributions seriously and I hope that you reconsider posting there to give your input. Please let me know if there's anything I can do in the future to assist you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure To speedy rename Category:Canadian Record labels by parent, simply insert ((cf-speedy|NEW NAME HERE)) at the top and follow the simple directions that appear on the refreshed category page. As for your question about Category:Canadian record labels, feel free to ask away on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure As you can see, I made one edit to remove a redundant category. Otherwise, I'm not sure what it is you want to me to look at exactly. Is there a problem with categorizing Canadian record labels? You may also want to post to WT:ALBUMS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG: you've removed the direct link to our parent! Try looking at the cat tree from the portal:Music of Canada. Argolin (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about this one first! I added the record label category directly to the Canadian music project's parent to increase it's visibility. Non-Canadians and record label task force users visiting the portal will not have to hunt for it through the sub categories. I thought it was a good addition directly under Category:Canadian music even though I understand that it's true parent is Category:Canadian music industry. I reverted your removal, but maybe I'm wrong in doing that. Please help! Argolin (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidelines I guess you could refer to WP:CAT and the rest of the subcategories of Category:Record labels by country; how are they categorized? Otherwise, you can do what you think is best, as I don't have much investment in the issue. I'd be happy to give more perspective, but I probably don't have it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have explored the labels by country. As I said on my post on your page, I'm often no further ahead when looking for answers! Your perspective is great for two reasons: 1. I may be mucking about with Canadian categories, but at the end of the day it has to make sense to all Wikipedians. 2. I'm just one user. When I make changes (adding cats to articles or creating new cats) I know why and where I'm going. If there are questions, then something isn't clear and should be addressed. Still willing to help? lol...Argolin (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I'm definitely willing to help, but I just need to have a more precise picture of what constitutes "helping." Right now, as far as I'm concerned, everything you've done is fine with me, but I also haven't scrutinized your edits nor do I know what your goal is at the end of the day. Anyway, if you ever think that I can assist you, please post on my talk or e-mail me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Argolin!

On 11 April and 6 June 2010 you redid the WikiProject banners on the subject page. As a result the banners take more room than they used to consume, the blp banner is missing and a DEFAULTSORT conflict was introduced.

• Please read the documentation and attendant discussions regarding the use of ((WikiProjectBannerShell)) for guidance about the first of these problems.
• According to a consensus reached more than a year ago, if any member of a band is still alive the band is to be considered as living.
• In almost all cases the |listas= in ((WPBiography)) serves as the sort value for all the other project banners. However, only one sort value is allowed on any page.

I have removed the |collapsed=no from each banner, restored the |blp=yes to ((WikiProjectBannerShell)) and deleted all the values for |listas= except the one in ((WPBiography)). Normally when I resolve DEFAULTSORT conflict I limit my explanation to the Edit Summary. In this case, since you have made such major changes to the page and I am undoing most of them, I thought it best to explain more fully.

JimCubb (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK thanks for your post. What major changes are you talking about? I changed the class=start and inportance=low. Argolin (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Arctic.gnome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Arctic.gnome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi Argolin. I've noticed you have been placing the WikiProject Biography banner on a number of articles not about people, such as the Vancouver Cantata Singers, West End Girls (Canadian band), etc. Articles about musical groups, ensembles, organizations, etc. should not have the bio banner placed on them. Only biographical articles (those about the lives of individual people) should have this banner.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians their scope now includes bands? Please reply. Argolin (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should consider applying for reviewer rights - Canada's just been added to the WP:Pending changes trial. See --> Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer to apply !! Moxy (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'll consider it after I read more on this new inititive. It looks like an anti-vadalisim project. I've come across a very low number of vandalisied articles that I've had to roll-back. Did you think of me because of the request posted on the discussion page or all the new articles being added to the music project? Argolin (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its more about editing...do this so you dont have to wait to add cats to certain pages,, see below for what it lets you do as a Reviewer!!Moxy (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interaction of Wikipedia user groups and page protection levels

	Unregistered or newly registered	Confirmed or autoconfirmed	Extended confirmed	Template editor	Admin	Interface admin	Appropriate for (See also: Wikipedia:Protection policy)
No protection	Normal editing						The vast majority of pages. This is the default protection level.
Pending changes	All users can edit Edits by unregistered or new editors (and any subsequent edits by anyone) are hidden from readers who are not logged in, until reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or admin. Logged-in editors see all edits, whether accepted or not.						Infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism, BLP violations, edit-warring, or other disruption from unregistered and new users.
Semi	Cannot edit	Normal editing					Pages that have been persistently vandalized by anonymous and registered users. Some highly visible templates and modules.
Extended confirmed	Cannot edit		Normal editing[a]				Specific topic areas authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive.
Template	Cannot edit			Normal editing			High-risk or very-frequently used templates and modules. Some high-risk pages outside of template space.
Full	Cannot edit				Normal editing		Pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. Critical templates and modules.
Interface	Cannot edit					Normal editing	Scripts, stylesheets, and similar objects central to operation of the site or that are in other editors' user spaces.
^ In order to edit through extended confirmed protection, a template editor must also be extended confirmed, but in practice this is almost always the case. Other modes of protection: Create protection Move protection Upload protection Office protection Cascade protection view talk edit

Thank you for your work in adding banners to the talk page of articles. I just wanted to let you know for future tagging that the WP:FILM banner should not be added to articles about biographies. The project is more focused on films themselves as well as characters, filming techniques, awards, etc. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin, nice to see you are still around. I was wondering why you downgraded this to stub-class when another editor had rated it as start-class. I actually think it fits in the start-class rating, as I look at the descriptions: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Paul, nice to hear from you. I stated earlier that Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music should have around 5K: I'm doin' it now! See User:Argolin/sandbox1 for what I'm currently working on.

The article in question did not fall into the "Sart" class per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Assessment#Quality_scale. Specifically, the content (verifiability) policies for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are not met to qualify for Start class:

"The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted."

Let me know your your thoughts. I don't (at this point) spend a lot of time downgrading the class of articles. My current focus is adding articles to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music project. Argolin (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, of course! Thanks for the explanation. Keep up the good work. Me, I'm going to have a look for some sources for that article. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You left a strange edit on Kaïn. You left it saying that they are a group "that was formed in YYYY". I'm assuming that it was a partial edit and you didn't mean to leave it like that. I have changed to simply read that they are a group "from" the town of Drummondville. DavidConrad (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Canadian music quick links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done...was just some odd coding there Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Tips.Moxy (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Members] Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Quick links Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Tips Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/leftpanel Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/rightpanel...................:) Moxy (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16#Template:Canadian music quick links: plus -->its linked now.Moxy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y are you moving all the portal pages??? --the portal does not see them .Moxy (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far I only moved the items in Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article. Yesterday, I added 011 which has been moved to 0011. The portal did not seem to recognise this new additon as 011 but as 11 (after editing the main portal number=11. I thought your wisdom would help. Argolin (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Random portal component only sees numbers in order - in other words number=11 will see (link automatically) to Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article/11 it does not see Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article/0011 -As the Random portal components have to be in numerical order for them to be seen in the main portal. Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article/1 - Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article/2 etc are named (numbered automatically) we dont pick there generated on there own.Moxy (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moxy, from what you are telling me the "Random portal component" does not really sort in whole numbers. This "Random portal component" equates the positional characters and does not consider 011 equivalent to 11. Do you not remember when I sorted the articles in Portal:Music of Canada/Selected article to a 00 format? Previously, we had more than 10 items (articles?) Content is still missing... Argolin (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

I was just looking at my wiki page cause someone clicked through to my website on it, and I noticed that you said I was not canadian. I am a Canadian citizen. I am french Canadian from Montreal. I was born in the US and registered as a Canadian born abroad. I am a double citizen. I am not on the wiki, can you please undo? You will notice that I won the Shuster award for best Canadian Comic book writer, because I am indeed a citizen. Also, I lived in Montreal, with my French Canadian family for 8 years while I went to school there. Thanks! Cecil Castellucci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.156.219 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were no citations to say you are Canadian. Technically, I was correct to remove them. I'll add the Canadian categories back. You're not supposed to edit your article. Argolin (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. please sign your postsReply[reply]

Go ahead with the project tags. The article still ain't great, obviously, but it actually has a couple of reference links in it now (which is more than it did the first time) — I didn't really evaluate the links in depth, but they're certainly substantial enough in length that there might actually be a salvageable article to be had if and when someone actually tackles cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add the banner for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments to articles about individual musicians. This banner should only be placed on articles about the instruments themselves or manufacturers/inventors/builders of musical instruments. Many of the pages you have been placing that banner on are not in the scope of that project. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you indicate that in the scope of the project? Argolin (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the scope's language could be improved. Please understand that the music instument project is interested primarily in improving articles on the music instruments themselves and not individual musicians. If you look at the majority of the articles with that project's banner you will see this to be the case. The parent projects WP:WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Classical Music have had several discussions about bannering practices and the need to avoid over bannering articles with multiple music projects.

The general consensus is that individual musician articles are bannered with the bio project banner (using the sub-project musicians field in that banner), a music genre banner(s) as relevant (ie classical, jazz, rock, opera etc.), and a geographic origin banner (i.e. WikiProject Canada). The composer project banner is used for composers /songwriters instead of a genre banner in most instances. It has been strongly encouraged to avoid over-bannering. For example, the opera project does not place its banner on the majority of opera composer articles as a matter of policy; choosing instead to let the composer project have its banner on those talk pages. Likewise the classical music project does not put its banners on composer articles or on opera articles, even though those articles are classical music related. These discussions are archived at the relevant projects and if you would like to read them ask at the talk pages of those projects and I am sure someone can direct you to the right place. I myself am not involved in archiving or otherwise I would link those discussions here.4meter4 (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A side note on genre banners. Some artists have performed songs in multiple genres, but it may not be appropriate to banner an article with all those genres. For example, opera singer Renée Fleming has released both a jazz and a rock album. However, she is primarily known for opera so the only genre banner that should be used on her talk page is the opera project banner. Banners are not treated like categories. The point of the banner is to point people to the projects with the most relevance to the subject in question.4meter4 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish you would have noticed earlier! I have already added all Canadian opera musicians to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music and if not there added the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera and / or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. A few articles may now be over bannered. I did come across a few articles where I added Opera/Classical/Composer banners (they were the exception). About half of the articles had the Bio project which I changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Do I need to do anything now regarding this overbannering? I can produce a list of articles which have both the opera and composer banners in place. Or opera, composer, and Canada. Or opera, classical, composer (basically any combination needed). Let me know...there may be more than the ones I've done.

I've only recently become aware of disagreements between the Musician bio and Classical/Opera projects. For example, you do not place ((Infobox musical artist)) on Classical/Opera articles. They have their own infobox template.

On the up side, our (Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music) project has ~5,200 musician articles. I'm almost done adding musicians to the project. I estimate there is another 300ish. Argolin (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been doing excellent work for the most part. Technically the Canada project is not a "music project", so I don't think it is over-bannering to add the Canada banner to all Canadian musician articles (Canadian opera singers included); although I know some editors who would disagree. The bio project banner is of course a necesity for all biographies (with all the policies related to BLP its pretty much a neccesity to link to the project even if is en mass banner spam). I wouldn't worry about trying to go back and fix the over-bannering because it is not really damaging the articles to over-banner. That's too much of a headache for you to try and undo it all. Just avoid over-bannering in future and fix things as you come across them in your general editing. As for infoboxes... that is a whole other can of worms. It's not just the classical music projects that have infobox issues. Many editors find them annoying/useless for a variety of reasons. WP:DISINFOBOX is a good read. Personally I am not a fan of infoboxes as I prefer to read information in a prose format which can address subtleties in content more accurately. On a happier note, thank you for all your great work on improving wikipedia's coverage of Canadian music and musicians. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not too much of a headache for me to get a list. I'm quite willing to remove any offending banners I've added (ie Canadian articles having the composer and opera). FYI, if it's a Canadian musician article, the Canadian music project wants the Canadia music banner (we want it added to our project). Generally, I won't be doing much more with any of the (Canadian opera/Canadian classical/Canadian composer) articles if they are already added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music. I (and maybe a bot in the future) will periodically check a given category to confirm that all articles in that cat are assigned to the Canada music project. I don't sit at my computer and check each article manually: I have a listing of all Canadian music articles which I compare to a list of articles in a given cateogry. Any articles in the second list, I add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music. Something similar can be done with the Opera and Composer projects (or Composer and Classical projects). Let me know. Argolin (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted back to Opera Canada on the arts magazines navbox. It's a magazine (although still a redlink). Robertbyrne (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand; help me out a little bit. Why did you revert back to the redlink and didn't leave my edit fix (or have it point to another html)? Argolin (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to the arts magazines navbox and the link to Opera Canada magazine. This is a magazine published in Toronto (see Opera Canada website. It's editorial address at 244 Adelaide Street, Toronto is quite a few blocks away from the Canadian Opera Company. Perhaps I am missing that the Canadian Opera Company actually publishes the Opera Canada magazine? If it did, there might be an argument for a pipe-link to Canadian Opera Company from the navbox, but "Canadian Opera Company" isn't an article that should be explicitly visible on the arts magazine navbox. Canadian Opera Company is not a magazine -- that's really why it shouldn't be on the navbox.

You can help by creating the Opera Canada magazine article! Robertbyrne (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All clear now, I sort-a-kind-of forgot about it until your talk here. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music, but I am by no means that knowledgeable about Opera. If you are, you should create it. Otherwise, yes I'll create one Opera Canada (magazine). I'll put it on my to-do; give me some time as I will need to find proper citations.

On a side note, Ukula. Never heard of them. Have they stopped publication? I remember how I came across your template. I knew I was going to be createing more articles (mainly Canadian indie music) and wanted a list of magazines from which to cite. I really don't like unsourced/poorly cited articles. I adore Exclaim!. In fact, it is endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. Argolin (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Hope you don't mind me jumping into the discussion.) I used to occasionally read Ukula (it was pretty good), and I know that it did stop publishing its print magazine. I just looked at their website, and it appears rather inactive as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed Ukula. As regards Opera Canada, I'm not knowledgeable about Opera so I'm happy for anyone else to get that article started! Robertbyrne (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly can't imagine why converting references to a different format would be contentious enough to require special consensus, as long as they still work and aren't futzing up the quality of the article (which they might be if someone converted from templated references back to the ancient "bare url right in body text" format instead, for instance, but that's obviously not at issue here.)

I do tend to "name" my references only when I need to reference multiple statements in different places in the article to one source, rather than consistently naming them across the board — but I'm certainly not wedded to the idea that my own personal editing quirks should prevail over better ideas. And I didn't even know that it was possible to stick the reference links directly into the reflist template at the end and then just use nametags in the article body; I only knew about the "put the link directly into the first set of reftags that it applies to" approach.

So yeah, trust me, you've always got my permission to update the referencing format on an article I created. As long as you don't break 'em entirely, of course (*silly grin*). Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Jeepday's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Anything you can help with would be great. Still learning how to create pages on here :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PascalRoyal (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very sorry. Really trying to understand all the formats. I will get there eventually. Did my change remove it from articles? --PascalRoyal (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Argolin. I've gone ahead and replaced the infobox and moved it live. Should I request further feedback? Thanks again for all your help. PascalRoyal (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I think I added it to the Canadian music project. Now for notability it qualifies under section 2 and 11 but not sure what I need to add in the article for that. Thanks for all the help.PascalRoyal (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I followed the link and added into the talk section of the article. I hope it worked. The reason it didn't work last time was that I quoted the artist's bio out of a website. But then didn't check back and because I didn't resolve the issue they just deleted it.

I added the reasons for notability in the first paragraph. Do I need to add anything else? Starting to get the hang of this. Thanks again.PascalRoyal (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I did was add ((WikiProject Canada | music=yes)) to the talk section of the article. I thought it worked but i guess it didn't. Thanks for adding it for me. Is there anything else I need to add for now?PascalRoyal (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at PascalRoyal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks Argolin, that makes sense. I got a message from moonridengirl with some more tips. I'm going through and neutralizing the article more and trying to find some more references. Thanks for all the help! PascalRoyal (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure the category you added ("Category:Anthem Records artists") makes sense for the Buddy Rich article. Buddy Rich never recorded for Anthem Records. Several years after the death of Buddy Rich, the Buddy Rich Big Band did participate in Neil Peart's Anthem Records' tribute albums, Burning for Buddy.... But it seems a bit inappropriate to count Buddy Rich himself as an Anthem Records artist based on this posthumous recording by the Big Band. If there were a separate article for the Buddy Rich Big Band, then it might make sense to add the "Anthem Records Artist" category to that article. What do you think? Pugetbill (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was historically an objection to eponymous categories such as Category:John Wayne; these had no subcats and tended to attract all articles which mention John Wayne. ('Films starring JW' was deleted earlier as it is difficult to ascertain who the stars are in a film.) This campaign was then applied to musicians and a whole lot of eponymous musician categories were deleted (although in fact most musician categories are neatly arranged into subcats which are not disputed: albums, songs etc.). There was then a counter-campaign which supported musician categories with 3 subcats, none of which have been deleted for some years. As a sop to the deletionists, those with 2 subcats were not usually contested (the use of ((catrel)) was thought to be sufficient) and those with 1 subcat are not in my view doing anything much. I would personally prefer a tightly defined subcat ('Founders of foo') rather than various articles at the top level being associated with foo in some unspecified fashion. Anyway my advice would be to get the subcats lined up first before creating the eponymous top one (which collects them together in a an intuitive and simple fashion). Occuli (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin, if you have an opinion as to whether the Oh Snap! band page should be kept or deleted, you might want to contribute to the AfD discussion. Robman94 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like yourself, I am an inclusionist. I try to be diligent in obtaining citations. My non-google list of reference sources is ever expanding! When I find citations to add to an article put up as either WP:PROD or WP:AFD or WP:SD (with no debate), yes I have an opinion! Keep. I have to do another search without the ! for the above article. Argolin (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you expand on what your "non-Google list of references" are? Are you a regular visitor to your local library or something? I have been given a bunch of old newspaper articles that I have been scanning and using for some of the Lawrence based bands of the 80s. Funny thing is, I haven't actually listened to the music of Oh Snap! yet! :) Rob Robman94 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes me cringe when users bring articles to a prod or afd and the first line is "nothing found in google". It makes me LOL as I know I'll probably be able to cite it! :) Which Lawrence are you talking about? There doesn't seem there are any places in Canada named Lawrence. My page User:Argolin/Sources is geared toward Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music. My page helps me defend articles at Canadian music Article alerts. However, a few sources on my page are U.S. in origin like allmusic. You might be interested in worldcat which is somewhat similar to Library and Archives Canada. I will always cite the Library and Archives Canada; if there is a record at worldcat, I include it as an oclc number. Edit the references section of the article and have a look. Be aware, my page is not actually santioned by the project; it still needs work. Argolin (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was talking about Lawrence, KS in the States. I'm British but have been living in Chicago since 1988. That's a cool list of sources that you've gathered there. I sometimes wonder just how good Wikipedia would be if all the deletionists put half as much effort into creating articles as they do deleting them. I think the Oh Snap! article might be a lost cause though as there really isn't much coverage online, and I've just discovered that the band has broken up, so they're unlikely to generate any more. The Lawrence bands that I've been documenting include The Embarrassment, Get Smart! and the Micronotz. These bands all existed in the pre-internet age, which makes finding RS all that much harder. Two of the guys in Get Smart! sent me a bunch of newspaper clippings, which I have been using for citations and have also been scanning to make verifiability easier. I've also documented some of the bands from the Minneapolis, MN scene, such as the Soviettes, France Has The Bomb, The Awesome Snakes and International Robot. Like you, my focus is on music (ie, bands and records). I'm mostly interested in punk bands, but am also documenting some Chicago bands that didn't have a sufficient wiki presence, like Stump The Host and The Blacks. I'm also taking photos every time I go to a concert so I can add pics to band pages that don't have pics. Robman94 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes! The deletionists should look to other tools than google! I'm not a fan. Google will not display this for one for example [5]. I don't think Oh Snap! is a lost cause yet. It's still early days per the Afd process! I haven't yet commented at the Afd. I used to do the punk thing also; check out The White Wires and White Lung (band) (2 articles I created). I love the White Wires; White lung less so. I created the second only 'cause we need more Canadian content on wikipedia and why not?: Exclaim! listed their debut album as the #1 punk recording of 2010. Argolin (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give a listen to the bands that you mentioned and report back. A cool local punk band is Noise By Numbers which stars Dan Vapid formerly of Screeching Weasel and the Methadones. Robman94 (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the reverse of you, I think the White Lines are OK but I love White Lung, they remind me a bit of X-Ray Spex. Having said that, I think White Lines would fit in quite well with the other pop punk bands that play Chicago (like Noise By Numbers, Banner Pilot, etc). Have you tried to find pictures for either page? Robman94 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you mean the The White Wires and with a typo had the White Lines.  :) For pictures, I currently rely on others at Category:Canadian music articles needing photographs. If you have a commons account, please visit and use the "Free Image Search Tool". I use this tool every few weeks to see if anyone has uploaded images for the Canadian music project and use them for the articles.

I've not checked out the bands you've recommended yet. I'll let you know; give me a few days. Argolin (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked back in on the Oh Snap! AfD, did you get your comment backwards regarding #1 vs. #11 of WP:BAND? Go back and check, I think you were trying to say that the radio station citations satisfy #11. Robman94 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I did mean #11. The band has not been played on CBC Radio 3. If they had been, the site would have listed all the programs via a downloadable podcast list. See Gramercy Riffs (band) for a band which I am claiming Band 11. All is not lost for the Oh Snap! article! Argolin (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, I have persuaded a couple of Flickr users to re-license their images under CC for both bands (White Wires and White Lung) and have added them to the articles. Robman94 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I guess it was a lost cause after all. Robman94 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked for help from User talk:Paul Erik in the reserection of the article. This deletion discussion went the other way than that I was expecting. I've seen others that were rather thin go to keep. If you are intersted see the history of Article alerts. There's not much history as the problems with the article alert bot was not sorted until 2011.

Please forgive my tardy reply. I was determined to add the remaing articles on my list to the Canadian music Project. It is my opinion that WP:CONSENSUS cannot be achieved in any deletion discussion when all relevant projects have not been made aware of the article's pending deletion. I am offended by Americans that want to rewrite history, or are in fact ignorant of history. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British America.

Many, many thanks for the pictures of White Wires and White Lung. Argolin (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Talk:New Democratic Party of Canada candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

117Avenue (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you're working on this one now, so here's another review: "Seriously demented-sounding synth-punk number about basking in the warm, glowing, warming glow of the boob tube—teacher, mother, secret lover." Or this one: "This local pop punk band has a synth-beat twist." There are articles on them here and here and here and here

However, the bad news is the band has broken up, the following post is on their myspace page: "After 7 years, 3 record releases, over 150 local shows, and a solid tour of Canada, GO Ghetto Tiger has decided to call it quits. In the last year Super J has gone through some serious personal issues and recently has chosen a wise path of health and recovery. He is a best friend and a founding member of the band. We want to thank all the members that have played with us through the years. We also want to thank all the support from friends and family. Anyone who bought our records and came out to shows, we love you.” - 4:07 PM Feb 26 2010

There's a cool pic of the band here. You could try writing to marQuo to see what the copyright is and if he owns it, ask if he'll release it. Of course, if it's a promo pic, now that the band's broken up, you can use it under "fair use". Hope that helps. Robman94 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I proposed this article for "deletion", for reasons stated in the Talk page. I am new to this deletion/protection aspect of wikipedia editting, so may not be following the right process. But seems that you are preventing deletion, with no rationale given. My point was that the article is titled "Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation". However the correct agency name is "Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation". This already has a good wiki article. So I propose to change the "Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation" article into a redirect to the correctly named article. Do you object to this? Gierszep (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey sorry I missed your post on the talk page. I've copied some stuff from Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation article. Before we zap the offending article, can you have a look? Anything you would like to add to the correctly named article? Argolin (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you made quite a few changes, but they all seem good to me. I have nothing immediate to add and think it is time to delete the wrongly named article. I also note that the correct article is listed as a stub; I am not sure what else would usefully be added and would be interested in your opinion on whether that flag should go. Gierszep (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't use album covers to identify the artist, so it can't be used in ((infobox musical artist)). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Call-Up has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long unreferenced band, with no significant claim to WP:Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Argolin,

I hope you are well.

On April 3rd, 2011, you made a change to the first paragraph on Hennie Bekker's page, revising "Juno Award-winning" to "Juno nominated" , and citing that Hennie Bekker did not win. Hennie is a Juno Award winner, albeit not as a solo artist, but with the group BKS. I'm wondering why this change was made - is there a source, or are there Wikipedia recommendations that state a musician/composer may not cite themselves as a Juno Award winner, unless they won the award as a solo artist?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Saffer (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Argolin,

I hope you are well.

On April 3rd, 2011, you made a change to the first paragraph on Hennie Bekker's page, revising "Juno Award-winning" to "Juno nominated" , and citing that Hennie Bekker "did not win". Hennie is a Juno Award winner (and multiple nominee), albeit not as a solo artist, but with the group BKS. I'm wondering why this change was made - is there a source, or are there Wikipedia recommendations that state a musician/composer may not cite themselves as a Juno Award winner, unless they won the award as a solo artist?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Saffer (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Saffer, I stand by my edit 3rd April 2011. Bekker did not win a Juno. His band BKS did. BKS has a wikipedia entry per WP:BAND. Bekker has a wikipedia entry, since he was nominated for a Juno per WP:BAND #8.

Sorry for my tardy reply. As pennance, I've replaced the Template:Infobox musical artist, corrected the table of contents per WP:MOS, added the citation for his Juno nomination, and added categories. Have I satisfied your concerns? Please let me know. I won't take as long to answer. Argolin (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Kenk whether the article Igor Kenk should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Igor Kenk, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Appealcourt (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have worked on this article as best as I can using verified references for all information and facts included in the article and have done my best to follow all wikipedia guidelines I'm not sure what else you want me to do, so I would appreciate further elaboration. Thanks! Fiddlingfreak (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiddlingfreak, Most of the citations may be verifiable but they are not independent of the subject. See WP:BLPSPS. There seems to be enough information out there without relying so much on the band's website. I've started the clean-up of the linkrot. Can you finish this cleanup? Let me know when you're done and I'll help search for newspaper articles. Hope this suffices? Argolin (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I've looked over the article and made some minor changes. It's good you found so many sources for Thurier, especially for the brief article it was previously. I removed the subheadings for each of his feature films as there currently isn't enough details for stand-alone sections. I would recommend writing a little more on the individual films, such as including details about critical reception, accolades, box office, etc. Keep looking for more sources to help further expand the article. Good job improving the article from its prior state. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In Lynn Miles, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Philo Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the delay on Talk:Glenn Gould/GA1, feel free to have a look at the review. Lampman (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine, maybe the notes could be a starting point for anyone who choses to take it further. The photo of the statue was originally the lead image, I believe. It could probably serve a purpose in the "Legacy" section, but you're right it would need more context. I think "References" and "Bibliography" could just as well be combined, or it will just be confusing to readers. Thanks for your efforts! Lampman (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit on the Gould page. Those semi-colons were out of control! I am a little confused by one sentence: Their affair lasted until 1972, when she returned to her husband. As early as two weeks after leaving him, she had noticed disturbing signs in Gould. Is that two weeks after Cornelia left Lucas, or two weeks after she left Gould?MisterCSharp (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, I found the context in the previous revision. I am making a slight clarification in the article.MisterCSharp (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My copyedit? Nooooo.... I don't claim to be a copy editor. After the article failed it's promotion to GA, I thought it needed major surgery. I looked at Jimi Hendrix and modeled Gould's article on that. The Hendrix article is structured logically -> Life, Death, Recordings, etc... Thank you for the clarification of my edit. I was trying to remove those semi-colons and got sucked up in the relationships section! lol... Argolin (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin. Good to see you working away at the Canadian music articles. I'm coming to your talk page to do some very very minor nitpicking. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Persondata#Short_description you'll see it suggests, "The first letter of this should be capitalized, but non-proper nouns should not otherwise be capitalized", so it should be "Canadian musician", not "Canadian Musician" you're adding. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nitpicking is allowed! I believe the edit summary had the caps not the actual edit (maybe I'm wrong?). I realised that it should be foo ocupation: Canadian musician. Why am I doing this you ask? These articles are on the Wolterbot clean up, when the short description is all the article needs. The final goal: to get a list of Canadian indie musicians needing help. It's nice hearing from you. Merry X-mas and happy new year! Argolin (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On some of the pages you edited, such as this, it is miscapitalized. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin, can I ask about this change you made? I just checked the Edmonton Journal source again, and it says he is from Hinton, but it does not say where he was born... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took it to mean he was born there. Argolin (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Argolin! Best wishes for 2012, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In regards to this edit to Alanna Clarke, where you said "remove Category:People from Cochrane, Alberta grew up there, where was she born? add Category:Place of birth missing + Category:Canadian musicians from Alberta)". Do you know where Wikipedia documents how to use "People from place name" categories? I understood that current and past residents (excluding visitors) of a place would be included. I don't think it's reserved for people born in the place, or it would be called Category:People born in Cochrane, Alberta. I'm also wandering why you added the (at this moment) empty category Category:Canadian musicians from Alberta. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, as I'm unclear of your reasoning, and of what the guidelines for the category are. --Rob (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Category:Place of birth missing (living people) there nothing helpful in Category:People by place. There is a brief blerb on Nationality in MOS:MUSIC and the MOS:BIO has nothing. I've always looked at FA class articles. I've always taken the "people from..." categories to mean place of birth. Where are you from? I bet your answer would be your place of birth, rather than where you are living now/persuing an occupation.Argolin (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It really depends on the individual situation; in some cases it's pretty straightforward, while in others it requires an editorial judgement. People can be added to "People from" categories for the place where they were born, the place where they grew up, the place where they live now, places where they lived as an adult for long enough to be relevant to their notability, several or all of the above, and on and so forth — but, for example, if a person was born in Calgary while their parents happened to be travelling, but was then taken back home to Montreal within days of birth and never set foot in Calgary again in their entire lives, then even though they were born there they aren't really from Calgary in any meaningful way, so Category:People from Calgary wouldn't really be appropriate or useful in that instance.

In this case, however, it looks to me like Category:People from Cochrane, Alberta is appropriate, and if you can properly source that she was born somewhere else, the relevant category for that place, if there is one, would also be perfectly appropriate alongside the Cochrane one — it doesn't have to be one or the other, but rather they can quite legitimately coexist.

As for the musicians category, just be aware that while "musicians by province" categories do exist, they're named "Musicians from Province" rather than "Canadian musicians from province". Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I corrected my mistake after the post from Rob. So the category is OK, but the birth_place field per Template:Infobox musical artist will be blank with the origin field will remain as Cochrane. The article will make no mention of where she was born until a source is found. Personally, I find Bio's with terms like "native of" or "hailing from" pretty wishy-washy. They should state the place of birth and where they make their music. Thanks Bearcat. Argolin (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying things Bearcat. You're understanding is basically what mine was, even though I've never seen it written down anywhere to my knowledge. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I should have explained a bit more. Were all on the same page. I makes me sad to have to read articles like that. They will never go beyond start class without basic Biographical information. Argolin (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alain Lefèvre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quebecois

Allan Coelho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vila Nova

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Please don't remove maintenance notices from articles, such as those on Alyssa Reid - it is more important to alert readers that the article has a problem then what categories the article is in. It also hopefully encourages casual readers to help improve the article and even become editors themselves. Thanks!    Thorncrag  13:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it is overkill. Please see WP:OVERTAGGING. The article is now tagged in nine cleanup categories. Many casual readers don't know how to fix issues. Instead of tagging the article with everything, why not address some of the issues? Do you need help on how to fix some of the problems? Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of reading poorly written articles. Please see to your edit: the infobox is now wrong. Happy editing. Argolin (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you check the history, I have been working on the article, and I have been working with authors of Alyssa Reid articles to try to get them up to spec. I also posted to the talk page for the article expressing concern about the article. Since it's a BLP it is very problematic. I agree it's a category bomb, but I think it's important most of all that the main visual tags show up so that new editors can quickly identify what's wrong with the article, especially when it's the main topic of new articles people submit. None of the tags on there are incorrect to my knowledge, though I could be wrong. Thanks! :-)    Thorncrag  00:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I look at our wolterbot cleanup list, the last articles I'm likely to edit are ones like Alyssa Reid with multi-issues. I'm more likely to edit an article with only one tag (like the linkrot tag) and of course fix any un-tagged issues at the same time. I'm not disputing all the problems you've identified and I'll leave it. The article will never advance to class=Start without fixing these issues. It's also sad that it is a relatively new article. Thanks for your time! Argolin (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Removal of Gemini Nomination on Steffan Andrews. Much appreciation for looking into the sourcing of that! But I would like to reinstate that entry by citing this source: http://www.geminiawards.ca/gemini26/press/GEMINI-Nominees-LIST-News-Release-Aug-3-2011.PDF - it is an official press release on the Gemini Awards site (and is actually linked to on the 2011 Gemini Awards wiki page) showing the nomination (on PDF page 25). The parent Academy's search portal you checked before removing the award entry is out of date and are not listing 2011 awards yet. I confirmed this by doing my own search on that portal and in the "Awards to search" field it shows "Geminis (English TV 1986-2010)" - so you can see it's out of date. (Additionally I have removed the "unreferenced" tag after adding citations for the Leo Awards.) Thanks! LapinJ (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on your side. Generally I cite more Juno Awards than Gemini et. al. What I took out is on the talk page. It incorrectly states it was a 2010 nomination. You've introduced linkrot to the article. Do you need help with that? Find citations for the other work he has done and remove all the tags! I'm not too happy with the editor with a close connection tag. The article is way too short to have any bias. Thank-you! Argolin (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Andy Vine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Welsh

Darlings of Chelsea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to British

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Argolin, Thanks for improvements to that article, which seems to have stood the test of usefulness fairly well! It seems ages ago that I wrote it as indeed it was, looking at the history. Luckily (not for my shelfspace) I have still got The Record Guide, prehistoric though it is, still a useful catalogue, and the Grinke / Ireland items are listed together under Ireland, 'Chamber Music', at page 317. They were all on Decca 78s. The Phantasie Trio with The Holy Boy was on AX 899-900, The E Major Trio was AX 242-244 and the sonata of 1909 on AK 1400-1403. (AX were twelve-inch gold label Decca Records, and AK were twelve-inch red label Deccas. The gold/yellow were the top range and the red the standard.) The authors awarded the latter set a single star, meaning 'superior performance and recording': their highest accolade was two stars, for 'Excellent'. The other page ref you ask for is from something I sourced online (if indeed it was me) and I haven't got any book in hand to tell me, but I'll see if I can find the online place. all the best Eebahgum (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On further inspection I think it likely that I lifted the statement about Discopaedia directly from the article in the Canadian Dictionary by Bryant, which I referenced, [here]. I have therefore never actually seen this reference eyeball to eyeball. Greetings Eebahgum (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you Eebahgum! I have access to a 1974 printed copy of Discopaedia of the Violin; albiet not in any way shape/form convenient. Appologies, as I changed your citation to include of the Violin. I assumed you had the book (you were quoting page numbers for your other cites). I think the book may actually be part of the "Bible" of violinists (covering years 1889-1971) and should stay. Since there are multiple copies out there, I've removed the year of publication and the oclc # from the book in the Bibliography section and have changed the note linking to the book. Do you agree with the article as it is now? Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) PS I forgot to add comments in the article stating that any edition of the book will suffice.Reply[reply]

I think the article is okay as is, but my attention has long since wandered away elsewhere, and I always expect others to come along and make corrections and changes and additions - and maybe some grand deletions too! That is, I adhere to the continual growth principle of Wikipedia:IMPERFECT. Good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Heart Records and Tapes of Canada Ltd., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Kids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know for future reference, people aren't added directly to "People from (Province/Territory)" categories if they're already in that same province or territory's "Musicians from (Province/Territory)" category; the musicians category replaces the general one. The only people who should ever be filed directly in "People from (Province/Territory)" are those who don't fit into any of the subcategories. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bearcat, it seems that the "People from" categories are an ((allincluded)) category. These cats are geography projects. The other is an occupation. I don't see a problem. Argolin (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at the "People from (Province/Territory)" categories, you'll see that they've never been used as "allincluded"; without exception, they only contain people who cannot be subcatted by occupation because an appropriate "Occupation from Province" category doesn't exist, and cannot be subcatted by city or county because an appropriate city or county subcat either does not exist, or cannot be determined because the article doesn't provide more specific birth information than their province. Even the most populated one in the entire set, Saskatchewan, only has 14 articles in it — and not a single one of those articles is double-filed with an occupational or city-based subcategory. For all 13 provinces and territories, the only people who are normally filed directly in "People from (Province/Territory)" are those who can't be funnelled down to any viable subcategory under current circumstances. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about articles like Frances Adaskin or Leo Smith (composer) or Frankie Sparo? Can you point me to a discussion on this? Argolin (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about them? All three of them are already funnelled down to one or more occupation and/or city-specific categories, and not filed directly in any "People from (Province/Territory)" category at all, so how are they proof of anything different from what I said above? Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you give me an example of an edit I did that you don't believe to be correct?Argolin (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You added Category:People from Saskatchewan to Carmen Campagne and John Arcand, even though both were already in Category:Musicians from Saskatchewan (and Category:Fransaskois people, which would also replace Category:People from Saskatchewan even if there weren't already other occupational or city/county subcats) and Category:People from Yukon to Jerry Alfred even though he was already in Category:Musicians from Yukon.

For what it's worth, the issue is that the whole point of subcatting by specific occupation or region is to reduce the size of "People from (Province/Territory)" — so if we're still using Category:People from Saskatchewan at the same time, then the category's size isn't actually coming down and there's consequently no point in even having Category:Musicians from Saskatchewan or Category:Fransaskois people or Category:People from Saskatoon.

The rule, per WP:DIFFUSE, isn't that people get added to every single category they fit into, even if one of them is already a subcategory of another one; in most circumstances they need only go into the most specific available category, such as a city-specific or occupation-specific one. If we added Category:People from Saskatchewan to each and every person who's already in Category:Musicians from Saskatchewan and Category:Writers from Saskatchewan and Category:Fransaskois people and Category:People from Saskatoon and Category:People from Regina, Saskatchewan and the like, then "People from Saskatchewan" would have thousands of articles in it — and we don't need or want any category to get that large. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bearcat, I think I understand. I created Category:Musicians from from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. From the 185 entries in Category:People from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador I removed 14:

• Amelia Curran (musician)
• Bob Hallett
• Brandon Jones (singer)
• Dermot O'Reilly
• Duane Andrews
• Fergus O'Byrne
• Joan Morrissey
• Jonathan Monro
• Kim Stockwood
• Mary Lou Farrell
• Ron Hynes
• Sean Dalton
• Séan McCann (musician)
• Terry Kelly (singer)

I left these two in the people category:

• Brendan Croskerry
• Patrick Moran (musician)

Are we all good now? Argolin (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: the redirection from Anita Andrés Sleeman to Anita Sleeman Because she went by Anita Andrés Sleeman professionally it is advisable to let it remain to avoid confusion. There is another Anita Sleeman who is a musician and can found in searches.

I am new to Wikipedia and don't know if 'undoing' is the best way to go or 'talking' with you. Or what.talk

Jools — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoolsA (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it's best to ask the user who did the edit. You pose a great question. When I see the article Anita Andrés Sleeman I assume that Andrés was her middle name not her maiden name. Did she use her maiden name? A new article for the other Anita Sleeman will have a Wikipedia:Disambiguation applied to the article name. I think it's ok as is; but I'll ask another editor more familiar with WP:DAB. Thanks for your contribution to wikipedia. Argolin (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still quite confused about all of this. I thought you were the editor who redirected Anita Andrés Sleeman to Anita Sleeman but the former is the name she used. If it was another I do not seem to be able to find that out. Thank you for your work. The article is much improved.JoolsA (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

I did create the redirect. Again, I'm PDS that what I've done is correct. Are you stating that she did use Andrés? You have a soucrce? Wikipedia is big; there are many guidelines (often contradictory). I've asked an admistrator about my redirect edit. Not a problem editing the article. I meant to update the citation for the Delta newspaper. I'll do that soon. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argolin (talk • contribs)

It appears to me that she generally went by "Anita Sleeman" (see here and here for example) so things look fine the way they are. On the other hand, if she went by "Anita Andrés Sleeman" and reliable sources referred to her as such, then the article ought to be moved back to that title. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Paul. New sources to add to the citations for Anita Sleeman. Argolin (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her degree certificates had Anita Andrés Sleeman on them, but it would be hard for me to get those as evidence at this point. I can understand where you are coming from and don't want to belabour the point. (I am her daughter.) I do so appreciate that the article has been so finely tuned by knowledgeable Wikipedia editors such as you. I can see that you do a lot of work in the field of music. Many thanks. JoolsA (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

I saw the article in the Canadian music New articles and added it to Canadian music project and others (via the discussion page). I could tell that the creator was new and really trying to conform to all that is wikipedia. I applied some TLC to the article. The article is new and more can be done to improve it. Has someone from the Classical music project had a look? They have specific rules for Classical musicians. The one biggie I know is the listing of Opus works as Op. which seems ok in the article. Let me know if you need help in this regard.

Back to the article name. That puts an entirely different spin on it! Don't worry, It's ok that we're still talking about it. Names are important; especially in this case to you. I'll see what Paul has to say with this new info. Argolin (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For article titles, we don't necessarily use the person's official name, we use the name that's most often used by English-language reliable sources. So we use Bill Clinton as an article title, not William Jefferson Clinton. All that is from WP:COMMONNAME. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in the process of adding her entry from the Canadian Music Encyclopedia which lists her as Anita Sleeman. All the sources until now were part of the Postmedia Network. Thanks very much (as always) Paul.

The article's name will remain as Anita Sleeman. Because a redirect has been established from Anita Andrés Sleeman, anyone searching in wikipedia for Anita Andrés Sleeman or Anita Andres Sleeman or Anita Sleeman will to point to this article. Argolin (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you again for all of the work you have done on this. The cross referencing is brilliant. It's evident that you are dedicated to high quality information and it's great that Wikipedia continues to improve thanks to you and your colleagues. I will endeavour to get verification for titling the entry Anita Andrés Sleeman as this would be her preference. I completely understand that the general information on the Internet and other media points to Anita Sleeman. I will get manuscripts that she wrote and her degree certificates to scan and attach, but it might be a while as after her death most things have been stored for sorting and archiving. Her hand-written scores are going to the UBC music library, other items to CMC, etc. Thanks again JoolsA (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

I've been trying to help new articles get off to a good start. Wikipedia instructs users to write "good articles". Easier said than done. I don't know whether you looked to other aritcles for a comparison, that can be good/bad depending. Currently, there is more that can be added to the article. It's good to know that in the future, there will be even more to add to the article. Back to the article name issue. It's going to stay as is per WP:COMMONNAME. Don't waste your time in seeking a revert back to the original name of the article. I completely forgot my manners: my condolences for your loss. If you need further help, feel free to post a new question to my talk page. Best regards, Argolin (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some minor nitpicking: we don't typically put birth or death places right next to birth or death dates in parentheses right after the person's name in the lead. Birth and death places can be put in the infobox, and within the appropriate places in the body of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Also, we try to keep to just one style of date formatting within a single article, including in the citations. So with Anita Sleeman, since the article was first created with month-day-year date formatting, all the dates in the citations should also have month-day-year formatting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nitpickings are always allowed! That's great to know birth/death places! Such articles looked odd to me. I've picked that up in other wikipedia biographies. I'll stop and correct any I come across. For date formats in citations. They do not need to be of the same format as the body of the article. Amazing but true. It's one of those wikipedia things! The only thing is consistency. Forgive me, I'll cite you the guideline after I'm done adding the The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada to Anita Sleeman. Argolin (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you are right. MOS:DATEUNIFY. Thanks for teaching me! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nooooo! (lol) I was just about to go to the maze of WP:CITE. Yet, you found it no problem (not even in the citation project)! As you may know, I prefer dmy format. I've held my nose a few times as the cited articles in the other date format per the existing format in the citations. Argolin (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing - I've tried to make the Delta Youth Orchestra link in the text to the Wikipedia article work. It shows in my user edit, but not in the live article. What am I missing?JoolsA (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

You have to select the edit button. Find the first instance only of item you want to wikilink. Then place two square brackets before and after the item. This syntax: [[Delta Youth Orchestra]] will produce Delta Youth Orchestra once you save the article. Does this address the issue? Argolin (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I finally get it. I was editing in my own space JoolsA and I could only see the changes there. It's starting to make sense. Sorry for any trouble.JoolsA (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

No trouble at all. We were all new once. There's alot to know in wikipedia. Take solace in that no one is an expert. My thing is Canadian music. I don't know it all: there's too much. Argolin (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I not write anything in the headline, or is there another trick? (I have no idea where this comment will end up!) I am now trying to correct the typo in the photo caption it says "Anita Adres Sleeman" but I can't see where the caption can be edited.JoolsA (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

Yes that should be fixed. Edit the article and change the wikilink file: "File:Anita Andres Sleeman.jpg|thumb|right|Anita Adres Sleeman" at the top of the article. How about a Template:Infobox musical artist for the article? Personally, I love them. However, the Classical music project objects to them unless their is a discussion on the article's talk/discussion page. If you want one, start a discusison there; I'll join and support the additon of one. If you are wondering what I'm talking about see an article like Arcade Fire or Emma Albani.Argolin (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like that idea of the infobox. While it isn't beyond me to figure out, the html-type writing is a chore for me. The photo credit is corrected now, thanks206.116.222.117 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)JoolsAReply[reply]

Start a discussion on the article's talk/discussion page.Argolin (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC) (ps You're to add two colons above for your previous post as I had already responded and indented the conversation)Reply[reply]

Certainly I try not to tag a bunch in a row (I've had problems with that in the past), but I do like to make sure that every article/template/category is tagged. If I use the Canada banner in the future, I'll try to remember how robust it is. I have done some province/territory parameters before... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at - tSR - Nth Man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello Argolin! i have left a message on the talk pages at "wikiproject christian music" with a request that you do not link this project with the miranda stone wikipedia. I do not do "christian music," despite the fact that i have played venues like cornerstone and so on. The music falls into the genre of music with spiritual themes; music similar to bands like Over the Rhine or Sam Philips. i believe worship music falls under the category of "Christian music," if anything. Making a category about a person in a "living person biography" needs solid evidence from multiply sources. If a christian reviews an album, that does not make it christian. i was informed by a member of the group that you had added this link to the "Miranda stone" wikipedia so i would like to request you to remove it. You can email me if you need confirmation of my identity (theoffice@mirandastone.com) Thanks very much! (Ksd306 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdress (talk • contribs)

The edit was done 31 December 2010 here. You need to leave a request on the discussion/talk page of your article. I'll do another edit later. What is your date of birth? Where were you born? I dispair sometimes reading articles like this. Argolin (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, it's a huge help. The site has been like this for years, but i didn't know what to do about. Also, i haven't owned a computer for a long time and have been on retreat. Just wondering, but do i have to put the birth/born info up there? I'd be happy to talk to you about that, but not in a public forum like this. i'd like to rally some of my fans to get info up on the wikipedia stub if i could. Most of them know that i've retired from the public eye in the last 5 years, but they have more solid info in regards to my career. I have a pile of newspaper reviews that can't be accessed on line and have considered scanning them. If you need to see information, there are about 4 scanned articles in the review section of the website (www.mirandastone.com) It's about 15 years of doing music by a lot isn't up online anymore. There's a fair amount of info up on the talk page if you need to reference anything. Thanks for your help Argolin! (Ksd306 00:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthdress (talk • contribs)

The taskforce never really worked out and I'm not that familiar with building them. The statistics on the pages never worked, and I would have like the banner to have a quality and importance thing but I didn't know anything about it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at Newfoundlander&Labradorian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Great, you got the stats table working! Thanks a lot, I'll start working on the taskforce again soon. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not picky, it doesn't matter to me if the status quo remains or if a new talk page is created. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never looked at all the articles, just their talk pages. In some cases I've worked on the pages a fair bit, as well I'm not great with assessments beyond stub class. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 2003 MuchMusic Video Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ashanti and Disturbed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you adding Category:1967 in Canadian music to Order of Canada? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it is of importance to our project. I've cited many articles for individuals that the Order awarded for their contribution to Canadian music. Sorry for the tardy reply. Argolin (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "project", do you mean WikiProject? If so, perhaps a talk-page banner might be more appropriate? In any event, another editor has opened a discussion about the category's use at Talk:Order of Canada; you might wish to opine there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I would never have known about it. Argolin (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true that the further back you go, the harder it may get to actually find relevant things — but look for things like that year's Juno or RPM Gold Leaf awards (if any) and that year's relevant entries from Category:Lists of number-one songs in Canada and Category:Lists of number-one albums in Canada (some still haven't been done yet but we have valid lists all the way back to sometime in the mid-1950s; don't forget to check the subcategories for country and CHUM charts!) I don't think that there are any annual music festivals where we've done an individual spinoff for each year (unlike a few of the US or British ones), but if you do come across any those would be appropriate — as would notable one-off events like the John Lennon peace concerts (which I see you've already gotten to.)

For more recent years, I think we do have spinoffs for individual years' MuchMusic Video Awards, and if we ever get around to expanding our coverage of the Prix Félix, or the East Coast Music Awards, to actually have annual nominee/winner lists the way we do for the Junos, those would be good additions too.

For what it's worth, the equivalent categories for American and British music haven't actually gone further back than the early 2000s yet — which is not to say that we can't go further back, of course, but it's almost certainly going to be harder to populate 1950s and 1960s categories than more contemporary ones. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the establishments category, in the case of a comprehensive, "meant to contain everything" classification tree like Category:Establishments in Canada by year, even a one-item category is entirely acceptable; notice that it already has quite a few one-item subcats. And anyway, it's quite likely that more things could be added to it if we did a bit of hunting. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The principle on Wikipedia is that disambiguation isn't meant to provide supplementary information about the topic for people who might not recognize the title on its own; it's meant only to distinguish articles which would otherwise have the same title as each other. So the relevant question isn't how well-known RPM is or isn't outside of Canada, but whether there's been another music magazine called RPM that would be in conflict with this one for the list titles. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, articles shouldn't be left sitting with redlinked categories on them. If you can't justify creating (or don't want to create for whatever reason) a relevant category right away, then the category shouldn't be added to articles as a redlinked placeholder. (People have been known to do it, admittedly, but they're not supposed to — and there's an entire maintenance project specifically devoted to creating, removing and/or repairing the resulting mess.) Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of RPM number-one alternative rock singles of 1996 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Machinehead, Aeroplane (song) and Peaches (song)

1964 in Canadian music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lee

List of RPM number-one alternative rock singles of 1995 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Comedown

The Cottars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ECMA

The Thomists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. Thomas University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:1971 Juno Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. And I haven't forgotten about our previous discussion. Will get back to you soon on that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did you try talking to User:MSGJ.....Moxy (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I created this years ago, and I think I copied the code from another similar template. I have no idea how it works though. Lugnuts (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited New York City (The Demics song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Argolin. Awhile back you got either an AFD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested, that would be very useful. We're specifically looking for info about whether the messages were more effective at communicating how people should participate in deletion processes as the author of the article. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Argolin. You have new messages at The-Pope's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Has been done, see Template_talk:WikiProject_Canada#New_taskforce. Apologies for the delay. The category page itself would need to be created as well. Tra (Talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you, I'll create the cat page. Argolin (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Editing Category:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador articles by importance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 09:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin, you recently removed a deletion tag from Editing Category:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador articles by importance. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Argolin. About 2 years ago you added ((punkcandidate)) to the article Canadian punk rock. If you wish to propose it again, please add it to the collaboration page. Until then, i have removed the template. Cheers, benzband (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I thought no one was interested. Argolin (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that may be explained by the fact it has been 2 years since the proposal (which was removed due to lack of support). I am trying to re-launch the Punk Cotm project, so any article candidates are really welcome (after, it's just votes). There is currently a proposal for Bikini Kill as part of Wikiwomen's history month (in March), but that's all so far. Anyone can propose/vote and it ought to be kept so long as it gets at least 3 votes in a month (0 in several was unlucky, i must admit :) benzband (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I can vote, I'll absolutely supportfor Bikini Kill. Argolin (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a registered user, of course you can vote. You can also propose any article within the scope of WikiProject Punk music (such as Canadian punk rock, if you wish to give it a second chance ;) ~ benzband (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I bother to resubmit? The article needs work. I believe it to be too embarrasing to include it as a subpage of Canadian music. The user that wrote this main page, mixed the punk stuff with rock. I know that's a shame, casue we had a few of note back in the day. Argolin (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As i got it, the point of the collaboration is to improve articles. It obviously needs improvement, so why not? In my opinion even if it fails, it doesn't cost much and is worth a try. ~ benzband (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your post. I'll give it another go. Canadian punk rock should have a section within Canadian music not one/two sentences. Argolin (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, whatever you feel is best :D ~ benzband (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

? Remind me again what I'm supposed to do... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right The problem here is that these categories contain both songs of the (e.g.) Canadian people as well as songs recorded by Canadian artists. So folk songs that are a product of Canadian culture (e.g. "O Canada") is mixed in with songs that were recorded by persons of Canadian ethnicity (e.g. "How You Remind Me".) I'm not sure how best to parse these out... Maybe the parent could be Category:Canadian music and that could include Category:Songs by Canadian artists as well as Category:Canadian folk songs or Category:Songs of the Canadian people or somesuch... Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry This is embarrassing but I guess you're going to have to walk me through this (even though it was apparently my idea...) I'll happily put in the work if you can clearly explain to me on my talk what I'm supposed to do. Alternately, can you show me where I posted what the problem is? I think that if I read my own words I can figure out what I was thinking. Sorry that I'm so dense here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It probably should be connected to the Canadian music project somehow, but I'm just not sure how best to do that since sound art, as such, isn't necessarily musical in nature (while it certainly can be, it can also be very different from what people normally understand as music.) If you've got any ideas, be my guest. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an actual reason for the move? It's not inconsistent with our naming conventions for the article to be at "Brocoli" if that's the name she's best known by — so I'm perfectly willing to do the move if there's an actual reason, but not just because it's been requested with no real explanation for the request. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I've been really of two minds about the move, and not sure how to explain it. The thing is that our guidelines for writing about fiction don't necessarily preclude writing about a children's entertainer at the title of the name she actually performs under; what they're meant to preclude is exhaustive plot summaries that write about fictional events as if they were real while failing to provide real world context for why anyone should care, which the article doesn't do. The article actually contains very little biographical information about Grenier as an individual, but is almost entirely about her public career as an entertainer — so it should correctly be at the name she actually uses as an entertainer, in precisely the same way that our article about the American pop singer is located at Lady Gaga rather than "Stefani Germanotta" (even though if you think about it, "Lady Gaga" could quite validly be described as a character played by Germanotta too.) Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Vahram Sargsyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was so surprised about the length of the article today. Sorry to have created before you :) In fact I've created it yesterday to have an English interwiki in the French article (it's a kind of assurance about speed deletion, when there are articles in other languages). It's cool that you improved it. I'm not a native English speaker (but I live in Toronto), so that's why I just wrote two sentences. Thanks for the article! --DeansFA (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And of course you can call me Rich. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Nine Mile (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kitchener-Waterloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed that back in January you tagged a death date for Gaston Allaire with ((citation needed)) as unsourced. Per WP:BLP, contentious information about potentially living persons (such as whether they have died) should be moved immediately without waiting for discussion, and not just tagged as needing a cite. I have updated the article accordingly; please try to remember to follow this rule in the future as incorrect information on living persons can have a detrimental real-world impact on people. –Grondemar 20:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In WP:BDP, see the second sentence: "Any individual born fewer than 115 years ago is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed the individual's death." Since there was no reliable source confirming the death and 1916 is fewer than 115 years ago, the rules of WP:BLP apply here. I left a message for User:Judd (although he hasn't edited since August 2011) and updated the ((persondata)) as you recommended. –Grondemar 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would recommend first attempting to verify the information through a Google search; if you can't find anything, remove the information and engage the editor who added the information. Remember not to immediately treat the other editor as a vandal; assume good faith and see if they can provide a source confirming the death. –Grondemar 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your last comment in the RfD discussion, you said that you were working on a draft article to replace the redirect. I would like to close out this old discussion. I can find no draft article created, though.

If you have not yet posted your draft on Wikipedia, could I ask you to drop it into the page now? Leave the RfD tag at the top for now but replace everything beginning "#redirect..."

If you have posted your draft somewhere in Wikipedia (a user subpage, perhaps?), please drop me a note where it is and I will move your draft and it's pagehistory onto the current title. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm proud of you, Argolin, for creating an article from a redirect I created. You should create another article from another redirect I created. Don't you think so? --Ktommy (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I said, you should create another article from another redirect I created! Don't you think so!? --Ktommy (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agrolin, since you told me I haven't said what article I want created, I want the Making It Work, Tuesday Knight (album), and Out of Control (Tuesday Knight song) redirects to be recreated as articles. And in case you didn't notice, the redirects I mentioned are redirects I created. --Ktommy (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Blow The Fuse Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Industrial Annual Report 2012

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the best for the new year, Argolin! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rah Rah (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long time no talk - hope your doing well ?

Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian music#What genres can be considered Canadian?.Moxy (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Artoffact Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, no third-party sources, no significant coverage found via Google News.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 05:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)please ping meReply[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Misteur Valaire instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This page was an abandoned draft that has now been declined or rejected as duplicating an existing article. Any details in this draft that are not in the article may be added to the article. This draft should be allowed to be deleted six months after this date.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Misteur Valaire and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Misteur Valaire, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]