| Revision as of 03:55, 23 September 2007 edit82.95.56.216 (talk) classic guitar← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:56, 23 September 2007 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,347 editsm Signing comment by 82.95.56.216 - "classic guitar"Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| == Classic Guitar == | == Classic Guitar == | ||
| Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Guitar#Acoustic_guitars, where the same statement about the 'Classic Guitar' is present. | Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Guitar#Acoustic_guitars, where the same statement about the 'Classic Guitar' is present. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Revision as of 03:56, 23 September 2007
(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth
Removing a Prod template isn't strictly vandalism. It demonstrates that someone objects to the deletion of the article, so I've listed it at AfD to get a broader cross-section of the community looking at it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It' wasn't so much the temp rm... it was the little rant added in that was pushing it. BTW, any track that isn't a single shouldn't have an article(for the most part). Heavy metal albums, in particular, have nn songs up the wahoo linked off of them. The bulk should just be re-directed. I am a staunch anon. I rejected my user account(after rolling over 21000 edits with it) for the purity of anonymous editing. If I were a logged user... I would be supporting, by vote, all of your recent AfD's. Good Luck! 156.34.210.48 03:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point. I took the addition as being a different way of removing the prod template with a reason (as opposed to putting it in the edit summary), but I guess it can be taken however. Thanks for the support, too. I think this is going to be a long-term activity, getting rid of a lot of nn songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may meet with a lot of criticism, especially from the "metal" contributors. Heavy metal and all its related articles seem to bring out the worst in "crufty fanboyism" from a lot of editors... even those who are veteran Wiki contributors. Even, gasp!, an admin here and there can fall prey to the "let's fanpage it" disease. I respect your attempts to try and put the "pedia" back into "Wiki". 156.34.210.48 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I expect to, frankly. That's why I started relatively small with the non-singles on Iron Maiden's latest album, which I felt would be a bit less objectionable than a "classic". Given that someone pointed out that Metallica have articles on pretty much every song...well, I could hardly say no, could I? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may meet with a lot of criticism, especially from the "metal" contributors. Heavy metal and all its related articles seem to bring out the worst in "crufty fanboyism" from a lot of editors... even those who are veteran Wiki contributors. Even, gasp!, an admin here and there can fall prey to the "let's fanpage it" disease. I respect your attempts to try and put the "pedia" back into "Wiki". 156.34.210.48 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point. I took the addition as being a different way of removing the prod template with a reason (as opposed to putting it in the edit summary), but I guess it can be taken however. Thanks for the support, too. I think this is going to be a long-term activity, getting rid of a lot of nn songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Classic Guitar
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Guitar#Acoustic_guitars, where the same statement about the 'Classic Guitar' is present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.56.216 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)