User talk:IzzyReal

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Robert Brown (musician) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/user/abneypark (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown page

Hope you don't mind; I watch the Abney Park page for vandalism on a daily basis at Captain Robert's request; I noticed you had put up a page for just him and it really needed some cleaning up. I noticed it's been put up once before and deleted; I'll try to help add enough stuff to make it stick and keep it looking wiki-respectable. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel and Abney Park have both had people vandalizing their web pages on a fairly regular basis (Dr. Steel's page was even recently protected by the admins for that reason). They both said they would appreciate someone keeping an eye on their pages for vandals. That's mostly what I do, I watch for vandalism, and try to make the pages conform to the Wikipedia article standards as much as possible. I'm not saying I own the pages or anything. And I do check with Captain Robert personally whenever someone posts something on the Abney Park page that I'm not familiar with, just to make sure it's accurate. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Someone just tried to tag both Abney Park and your Robert Brown page for speedy deletion by putting a "hoax" label on them. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah but that is something that would never fly past admins." Quite the contrary, actually. The admins recognize certain people as being "established users" of certain pages. For example, only myself and one or two other users, and admins, can currently edit Dr. Steel's page, as we are recognized as "established" users of that page, meaning we've been looking after the page for quite some time and have been engaged in improving it. And just try adding something to the main Steampunk article and see how fast it gets kaboshed by RepublicanJacobite; he's not an admin but he ferociously protects the Steampunk article from vandalism, with the full consent of the admins. That's the way the admins operate: Wikipedia is just too large for the admins to watch everything so they let people who are passionate about certain subjects be the watchdogs of those articles. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw if you have any suggestions for improvement of the main Abney Park article, feel free to run them by me. I've only recently been a fan and became involved with the Wiki article after a conversation I had with Robert at an event in October, but since then I've been steadily working on improving and referencing the article (it had no references whatsoever when I started, which is the kiss of death around here), with Robert's and a couple of his personal friends' help. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The backstory is likely going to get deleted by the admins since they've deleted it more than once already; I had a devil of a time keeping Dr. Steel's. They would consider it too long and largely irrelevant. However, I'll see if I can edit it some over the next day or so and make it less objectionable to them. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking it over, I'm fairly sure the admins will KO the whole section on their next cruise through here, since it's covered in the previous section: "As part of their transformation, Abney Park invented fictional identities of themselves, complete with a background story that describes the fictional history of the band as the crew of an airship named the Ophelia." Which was the compromise from the last time the section was removed. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just retooled it into a more concise version that might pass muster; trying to avoid the fannish "in-universe" perspective that wikipedia admins despise, and making it sound more "encyclopedic". --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia page

Why is it not a good idea? Because it's what Wikipedia calls "In-Universe". Fan stuff, marginally promotional. Wikipedia admins hate that stuff with a passion, which is why it's already been deleted from the AP page by the admins at least twice in the past. There's a reason it was removed by them twice. Because it doesn't belong. It's not encyclopedic.

The admins are already eyeballing the AP and Robert Brown pages because they believe an "agent of the band" is reworking it, which is another big red flag for them. And I don't want to see the whole AP page get killed. I think I can defend your Robert Brown page as relevant. I don't think the Ophelia page would ever pass a deletion review. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Agent of the band? What does that even mean?" A lot of bands try to self-promote themselves using Wikipedia. And a lot of fans try to use band pages to promote the bands. Wikipedia demands a dispassionate, "neutral point of view" in their articles, and they want things short and simple.

There wasn't a Dr. Steel page here for a year and a half because the fans kept trying to use it as a promotional tool, put up his "manifesto" and add large sections about his fictional biography and other fannish nonsense, and the admins said "fine, there just wont be a page at all then." It took a year and a half of calming both sides down, trying to regain the admins trust, and even then a month long bitter slugfest in their Deletion Review pages before it was accepted again. And I don't want to see that happen to AP. Not speaking as a fan here, speaking as a fellow musician who wants to see the bands given their due credit. And someone who's learned a little from experience about what the admins will accept and what they will get really pissed off about. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction isn't as important as fact on Wikipedia. The admins don't care, they want "just the facts". "In-Universe", i.e. band fiction, gets promptly removed. We added a very abbreviated backstory section in the main AP page and showed how it pertained to the band, but I seriously doubt any further embellishment would fly here. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to cast aspersions, but you have been behaving rather fannish. Which I understand, I'm a fan of a few bands and other such things myself. We human beings tend to be passionate about the things we're fans of. But they don't really have any place here. Wikipedia isn't a blog and fiction doesn't carry any weight. And the comparing the backstory to Harry Potter is rather apples and oranges. Harry Potter is an established series of fictional works well-read all over the world, and people looking through an encyclopedia might want to know facts about the book. The backstory for AP is just that: A backstory. A backdrop. Scenery. Window dressing. To a fan it makes all kinds of sense and is all kinds of important, but the average Joe Reader looking for information about the band is going to want facts about the band, not made-up stuff, just like they'd want to know facts about Harry Potter, not fan fiction about Harry Potter. If AP came out with a novel about the band and embellished their backstory in it (which could happen, who knows), that would be an entirely different thing altogether. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

Please see these two links before thinking about recreating this article again: AfD 1 and AfD 2. The version you created was, quite frankly, even worse than the last version that went to AfD, inasmuch as it was very poorly referenced and so broadly defined and written that it incorporated too much content to be useful. Please think about these issues. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello IzzyReal, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles

The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

IzzyReal, good luck, and have fun. --RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received a proper welcome before now, and I regret I did not think of this sooner. Please continue to edit, and let me know if I can be of assistance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NALBUM

If albums are not independently notable, they do not get their own article. You can list them in a discography on the Abney Park (band) article, but please stop reverting the redirect. Thanks. 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think that rather then fix something yourself you're going to keep doing the same stupid thing. The album is notable any idiot willing to do a few minutes of research could figure that out. If you find this comment offensive I apologize but do some real editing not redirects to an unrelated page.IzzyReal (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you a pass since you appear to be a fairly new user and unfamiliar with WP:GNG and other guidelines like WP:CIVILITY. Please take the time to read the guidelines. You haven't shown that the album is notable so I will be redirecting. If you revert, I will put the article up for deletion and the AfD can sort it out, but that seems unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Abney Park (band) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Pfranson (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aether Shanties

I just noticed that. I have the main article in my watch list but none of the albums. (Until now, that is.) If it's constant and malicious, you can petition to have a temporary lock put on the page, like I had to for Dr. Steel's page. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the page histories and see who's doing it and why. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sometimes I don't get the politics of this site... it's like a bunch of dictators constantly fighting over if their opinion is truth.IzzyReal (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aether Shanties (Abney Park album)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aether Shanties (Abney Park album). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aether Shanties (Abney Park album). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the win there. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Killed Television

Hi Izzy. I am afraid that I have had to turn down your speedy deletion request regarding Internet Killed Television. WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance - I feel that the Mashable Open Web Awards listed in the article constitute such a claim. You may wish to consider listing the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - the article isn't speediable, but it certainly seems borderline to me. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I have reverted your moving Evolution and Theory of Evolution around. Such grand operations need to have a. an explanation in the form of an edit summary and b. consensus after discussion on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Abney Park (album)

The article Abney Park (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moe ε 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hmsophelia.png

A tag has been placed on File:Hmsophelia.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Robert-abneypark.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Robert-abneypark.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]