This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.44.16.82 (talk) at 09:33, 4 July 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:33, 4 July 2008 by 86.44.16.82 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)b. & h. hip hop
Why remove the artists? Do you know them not to be notable? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes i do. A band is not considered notable enough to go on a wikipedia band list unless it has its own article. This does not mean that simply creating an article for every band gives them notability, they still have to demonstrate notability on their articles--Jac16888 (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't assume they aren't notable just because no one has written articles for them. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, but until someone does write an article for them, an article which demonstrates notability, we can't know they are notable, therefore we don't include links to non-existent articles. Plus they look untidy, and if we allow a few, eventually there will be billions of red links all over wikipedia--Jac16888 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't assume they aren't notable just because no one has written articles for them. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
i replied that editors have constructed the guideline WP:RED to deal with this.
I was obviously confused when making that summary
and must have confused you with someone else. Your talk page history does not show any warnings, either received or removed. In fact, I can't figure out who, what other IP, I might have confused you with. So, doubly confused. I offer you my apologies.
Separately, the topic of user talk warnings is very difficult. For example, last night (much later) another user kept deleting warnings to them, and other editors/admins did not 'notice' the warnings extending into the previous day. Everyone is supposed to look and notice patterns of abuse as seen in history, but we get lazy and just give one look.
And I have done just what the advice says, and archived old warnings and discussions when they would only serve to embarrass the IP/user. But... that is best useful after the problems have stopped.
Again, apologies. Goofs like this, realized, keep me checking what I'm doing. Shenme (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Prior account of blocked user
It appears this IP, among others, may have been used by 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), currently blocked for disruption. --Elonka 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus: Bad block. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |