User talk:Wiki libs

This user may have left Wikipedia. Wiki libs has not edited Wikipedia since 28 April 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk page archive

Hello, I recently added the page of Rush's Permanent Waves album, saying that the lyrics to Different Strings were written by Neil Peart. You revised this edit, saying they were written by Geddy Lee. I just checked the CD booklet once again, but it really does credit the lyrics to Peart. Can I ask what you used as your source that those lyrics were written by Lee? Thanks. Pwh1992 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently you deleted the comment on Slade's discography for the peak on rateyourmusic's album and singles chart. May I ask why these comments was unallowed? Thanks. Ajsmith141 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website you chose as a reference for that informations fails WP:RS. Only reviews/opinions from websites which are approved by the Wikipedia music project are allowed. These reviews/opinions must come from professional sources and not amateur polling sites. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man you again deleting steve from the list.

Have you at least take a second to see all new sources plus the old ones? I have find written articles by music journalist, articles from the gibson web page itself, a freaking video of freaking frank hannon saying about steve and gibson guitars. The lead is clear: 1) they are musicians with long careers who have a history of faithful Gibson use: checked 2) the particular instrument they used was unique or of historical importance: checked 3) their use of the Gibson model contributed significantly to the popularization of that particular instrument: checked

I have found many sources and explained on the discussion, some people agreed with me, and even I have notice several people tried to include him on the list.

What i really dont understand is people like: Elliot Easton, Matthias Jabs, Daron Malakian, Nikki Sixx, Alex Skolnick and John Sykes (he was supposed to be Steve Clark replacement after his death) are on the list and Steve is not, all they have similar entourage but even still Steve it is much representative as a gibson player.

Many of the names on the list have barely a source some of them haven't even a source like: Chet Atkins, Franny Beecher, Dickey Betts, Mick Box, Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown, Carrie Brownstein, Jack Bruce, Buckethead, Sam Bush, Allen Collins, Reverend Gary Davis, Buck Dharma, Bob Dylan, Elliot Easton, The Edge, John Entwistle, The Everly Brothers, Tal Farlow , Peter Frampton , Ace Frehley, Freddie Green, Peter Green, Dave Grohl, Arlo Guthrie, Woody Guthrie,..... wow ok im tired but all in all you have some famous people here but according to the lead this people should be out of the list too because none of them has sources to back up the inclusion. you have 81 artists on the list without sources and you had not delete them?

Look for me is easy just revert your edit because i have the back up, but then you are going to delete it again so its going to start an edit war which i don't want do, I just want to know and expose all this matter and understand your point of view.

Why don't you have 5 minutes review all the documentation before deleting. Its hard for me keep pushing and find new sources when people like you delete my work in 5 seconds.--76.26.24.74 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this is about 100x more thought-out than most of the posts made here asking Libs to unrevert something. --King Öomie 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He still fails the article lead-in no matter how wordy/weak the the argument. Sorry. Wiki libs (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak? lol dude you are funny though, This CLEARLY give me the reason you have not even evaluate the sources or read any of it. since you dont have any back up, reason or fact to remove him I just going stop to "convince" or explain you anymore because neither videos or 100 plus sources will be enough for you. its like trying to explain a donkey the mass energy equivalence in figurative speech. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all of us I just edit/remove from the list some players that has not citation. Since you only have eyes for deleting new additions you forgot to clean the list itself so its my duty cleaning up the list and make sure all players met the lead --76.26.24.74 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thou shalt mind WP:TROLL before editing. The article has been around long before your attempts to fancruft it. please read all archived talk page discussions along with discussion on the reasons for the page in the first place which can be found at wp:guitarist. Wiki libs (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about wordy/weak my Canadian friend. --76.26.24.74 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation is good. Wiki libs (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man of few words I guess your best skill is deleting than contribute.--76.26.24.74 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also good at restoring valid content into articles after trolls have tried to blank pages. Wiki libs (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The note for the image width of 220 was put in there quite some time ago by editors who identified a formatting issue. A 250px image does indeed alter the formatting of the infobox which also impacts the rest of the article if you look. I'm not going to edit it any further with regards to the anonip - just making a note to you about it is all. Srobak (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 220 note is standard and is intended for uploads whose pixel width is less than that number. IE, if someone uploads a portrait that is only 100px wide. And then adds it to the template...WITHOUT specifying that the width is only 100px....then the template will default the pic to 220 and the result will be a grainy image. That is for "portrait" format only. For all landscape (or wide) formatted images....the field for landscape must be set to yes and the image width set to 250. Otherwise the result will be a box that is WAY too wide. The IP edit setting the image width to 250 was valid as it was setting the image to the proper width for landscape images. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...drop me an e-mail, man. Tell me how you are and how you are holding up, etc. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Street Middle School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Middle School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lololol. RandySavageFTW (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuffle snuffle out of bed --Ben9201996 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]