I have nominated List of some notable dancers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of some notable dancers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Roleplayer (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Category:Dancers is for, as suggested in the AfD nomination. To say that some are "the best" or better than others is just your point of view and that's not what Wikipedia is about. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's unmanageable - to have that amount of information in a single list about every dancer would be too much, but to start selecting based on ability, as you appear to be suggesting would be extremely subjective. The only way the article could be kept in all reality is if it's a list of names, with the information contained within the articles. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that is a good point. I hadn't noticed that. I do feel "heavy metal" isn't necessary, as I explained, but maybe if some more sources for "groove metal" could be found, what I looked at isn't comprehensive by any means. And I'm not trying to deny sources, it's just 6 genres does seem a bit much and the most commonly used terms should be represented fairly. If good sources for groove metal can't be found, then it would suggest the fault lies in the "groove metal" page. After all, it's an unsourced claim. Prophaniti (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove hard rock, go for it. Likewise, if you want to include alt. metal, all you need do is find some good sourcing. I use talk pages plenty, but only when there's more than can reasonably be said in an edit summary. Here it's just a simple matter of sourcing. Prophaniti (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well if it's something like that, with a talk page where the responses just seem to have dried up, you could try asking at request for comment, where you can specifically ask for people to contribute to a talk page. You could also ask at a related wikiproject, like wikiproject Evanescence, or wikiproject rock, or wikiproject metal. It's under the scope of all of those. Prophaniti (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wanting to help find a consensus with more editors on this article. I look forward to the RFC.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hip hop is a subgenre of hip hop music. Britpop is a subgenre of Alternative rock. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Right about alternative hip hop. But britpop is used in many pages. and the style is quite different. e.g. Alternative metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, but we see alt metal in many pages. But about alternative hip hop you're right. Only some fans are very tough about gorillaz not being confused with hip hop bands. but the term alt hip hop is not usually used in wiki.

Hello, Solino. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solino. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solino. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to be aware how consensus works. The inclusion of the term "hero shooter" has been challenged by multiple(!) people, including Masem and The1337gamer (which you probably were aware of bit turned a blind eye to when blaming me). So, per WP:BRD, you have to seek consensus, just giving the exact same arguments before goes nowhere. This is not a matter of NPOV, but of good community behaviour. I've given you a good way to communicate this with the generality for vodeo games (keep in mind that Overwatch and TF2 are not the only games that could or should carry this term somewhere), but instead of confronting more people, you blame me using the ever same argument ("there are sources, you are ignorant"). By the way, Forbes is not a reliable source. Out of good fath, just discuss it so we can reach a clear consensus for how to handle it on all hero shooters. Lordtobi (✉) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know how consensus works. But adding a genre that is mentioned by many promonant gaming sources including IGN and PC gamer is not a Bold edit. There should be a nonPOV reasoning behind the revert, usually when different sources claim contradictory things. For example on topics that are controversial and easily influenced by bias. But a term for video game genre is a fact based information. Either enough reliable sources have called these games hero shooters or not. I'm giving you several reliable sources that support this fact. Reverting the sourced edits without any reason backed by sources is not the way it works. You cannot revert information backed by sources just because "you're challenging" the edit, unless your challenging is backed by other sources.

However, I did not mean to imply that you are ignorant and I'm sorry if I unintentionally implied that.

Solino_{the Wolf} 06:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solino. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eternal Shadow was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Multiple instances of WP:REFBOMBING occurring, including “[3][14][15][16]” Please use the three best sources for each claim, not any more.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bahar Atish and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eternal Shadow Talk 17:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solino! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eternal Shadow Talk 17:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]