Talk:Shadow Warriors (band)

Untitled

Lol, awesome. --ForestAngel 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More encyclopaedic

I changed the entire article to reflect an encyclopaedic page, instead of something like a journalist would write in a newspaper. I removed "unfortunately" as well, as this is unneeded and presents a point of view. I did my best, but it can definitely be improved. --Dayn 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, but this page was written as such in a 'journalistic view' to give a complete understanding of the history of the band. I reverted it back to the biography as it was written and asked to be shared. With your edits you removed alot of specific and important information that is focused on the band as well. If you edit it again please do not remove all of this information just so it looks like a short essay for a grade, thanks. MournBlade 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet this is an encyclopaedia, and the current look is not encyclopaedic. Whether it was written and asked to be shared is beside the point; it can be linked to in the external links. As it is, it has irrelevant information, and seems like an advertisement. Whether it was written in good faith or not, it's not suitable for an encyclopaedic entry. --Dayn 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether material in a biography is irrelevant is only a matter of opinion, the material is there as it is presented to inform, not advertise. There are many pages on Wiki that you would deem un-encyclopaedic, even ones that you have edited yourself. That is also a matter of opinion for the administrators of Wikipedia to decide.

I have re-edited the page again with some of your edits in place to satisfy Wikipedia and make the page more informative and encyclopaedic without removing relevant information as you have done. MournBlade 03:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; the first revision of this page was completely different to many of the other pages I've edited. Regardless, I've fixed some things to your edit, removing point-of-view words and that. I'm still not sure whether the info regarding the website being "amateurish" should be kept, but I'll leave it there anyway. --Dayn 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you disagree, it's your opinion, I would disagree as well if I were you because just like you, I would be the one making those edits. But just as that is also opinion, I as well as many others will likely disgree with you on that subject. Like you said, regardless, I fixed some edits as well, I have compromised, I'm sure you can as well. MournBlade 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically it isn't an opinion; most of the other articles I've edited weren't in the same journalistic fashion as this was. I don't mind if edits happen, so long as they're good. I like the current revision, looks good. --Dayn 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadow Warriors.jpg

Image:Shadow Warriors.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://shadowwarriors.alturl.com/

  Triggered by \balturl\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)