| Revision as of 23:37, 10 July 2016 view sourceMagnolia677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,861 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:59, 11 July 2016 view source Xboxmanwar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,800 edits →Allen Ritter: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Reply: I used to not provide sources, but now I always do. When I don't use my account, it's usually because I forget to sign in. I do not know what you mean when you say I am not providing sources. If you are referring to when I changed the Galveston Weatherbox, I did not add a source because more information could be added from the existing source. ] (]) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC) | Reply: I used to not provide sources, but now I always do. When I don't use my account, it's usually because I forget to sign in. I do not know what you mean when you say I am not providing sources. If you are referring to when I changed the Galveston Weatherbox, I did not add a source because more information could be added from the existing source. ] (]) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Allen Ritter == | |||
| I am disgusted on how you nominate ] for deletion, again. How can you say that he is isn't notable? ] should've been deleted, even through I endorsed it, because Allen has way more credits than Kodak, with the latter only having one charted song (featured artist) and mixtape, which haven't been in the Billboard Hot 100 yet. Plus, Allen has been in the music industry longer than Kodak, Kodak is only beginning to get recognition, Allen was way more recognition than him, he worked with tons of artists, versus Kodak, yet you think that Kodak's article should be kept instead. | |||
| Also, even if he is Grammy nominated with 18 other people, you thinking its "hardly" a nomination, its still a nomination, you are incorrectly marking him that he fails ], which you know it isn't true. You can't just blow it off like its nothing, plus he was one of the few people that ever got nominated once, versus some of the other artists in the nomination, which have been nominated before. Just to add to it, you really don't need a lot of sources for the production discography, since you can simply google it to find out, or go the album page that has his credit, obviously it will be there too. | |||
| You didn't "save" the article, you didn't even add new sources, makes no sense of saying that you tried to "save" the article, you only removed sources. Even with the info you removed, his article still has more info than Kodak's article, the Kodak article really fails ], since Kodak is barely notable in the music industry, with regards to credit, only fame, but Allen is much more notable in the music industry, with regards to credit, plus his article has less info, Allen's article has way more info, and Allen has songs that he was involved with that were RIAA certified, you can google it for proof. I hope you ] Allen's article, because marking his article for deletion is irregular. ] (]) 01:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:59, 11 July 2016
Userboxes
|
Reply: I used to not provide sources, but now I always do. When I don't use my account, it's usually because I forget to sign in. I do not know what you mean when you say I am not providing sources. If you are referring to when I changed the Galveston Weatherbox, I did not add a source because more information could be added from the existing source. Howpper (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Allen Ritter
I am disgusted on how you nominate Allen Ritter for deletion, again. How can you say that he is isn't notable? Kodak Black should've been deleted, even through I endorsed it, because Allen has way more credits than Kodak, with the latter only having one charted song (featured artist) and mixtape, which haven't been in the Billboard Hot 100 yet. Plus, Allen has been in the music industry longer than Kodak, Kodak is only beginning to get recognition, Allen was way more recognition than him, he worked with tons of artists, versus Kodak, yet you think that Kodak's article should be kept instead.
Also, even if he is Grammy nominated with 18 other people, you thinking its "hardly" a nomination, its still a nomination, you are incorrectly marking him that he fails WP:MUSICBIO, which you know it isn't true. You can't just blow it off like its nothing, plus he was one of the few people that ever got nominated once, versus some of the other artists in the nomination, which have been nominated before. Just to add to it, you really don't need a lot of sources for the production discography, since you can simply google it to find out, or go the album page that has his credit, obviously it will be there too.
You didn't "save" the article, you didn't even add new sources, makes no sense of saying that you tried to "save" the article, you only removed sources. Even with the info you removed, his article still has more info than Kodak's article, the Kodak article really fails WP:BIO, since Kodak is barely notable in the music industry, with regards to credit, only fame, but Allen is much more notable in the music industry, with regards to credit, plus his article has less info, Allen's article has way more info, and Allen has songs that he was involved with that were RIAA certified, you can google it for proof. I hope you WP:WDAFD Allen's article, because marking his article for deletion is irregular. Xboxmanwar (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)