I reply on my own talk page. If you send me a message, consider watching this page. Likewise, if I send you a message, I will watch your page so we don't have to go back and forth.
Because no one uses Gopher. Everyone uses Flash. But either way, my point was that there is no reason to mention one unsupported feature without listing them all, which would be stupid. The fact that it does not support the protocol doesn't make it notable; no reliable sources have mentioned it. Just because it's true doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. See WP:NOTE and WP:V. — FatalError18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, FatalError has given up editing music articles, so I doubt he cares. But I'll let him answer the question, because I am also curious as to what's happening about that. I just thought this would be a good time to thank him for his contributions to A Day to Remember, an article he created. It's looking so much better now. He is missed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pwnage8. ThroughTheDarkness, I'm not going to enter into any more debates about music-related articles, but I'd be happy to comment on something if you need it. Since I kind of started that debate in a way, I don't feel it's fair to say no, so feel free to ask me something if that's what you wanted. Just don't drag me back into that debate...I'd rather not. I feel it's a waste of time until Wikipedia's policies change. But it doesn't hurt to ask, does it? :) — FatalError23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
alright thanks man i was just wondering if you believed if a band's beliefs were christian than should they list themselves as and sing christian music...KillTheEnemy (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should go by the sources. If they call a band "Christian rock", then list them as Christian rock. It doesn't matter what the band says, and it certainly doesn't matter what you'd qualify their music as. Making your own judgement about whether their music is Christian or not is original research. That's my two cents. — FatalError23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now they put it back in. Either way, it won't solve the problem; the genres will still be in the articles, just in the body instead of the infobox. That proposal won't do anthing to stop genre disputes. — FatalError05:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I did not see it covered and regardless of whether or not it is a reliable source, it works, i have used this precise method and am currently using it, I do not see how this is unreliable. Petiatil (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Typically, I'm as much of a stickler as you on our core policies of NPOV, NOR, and V. However, the deletion you made from this article - the rate of increase - isn't unpublished synthesis, or even an unpublished idea. It's simply stating a continuance of what can be verified directly on the gmail page. I note you didn't remove the actual amount of storage space, which is retrieved directly from the gmail page, also. This is probably a matter of applying WP:SENSE, and taking WP:OR in its correct context - "unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." I don't believe that simply observing the rate - a matter of quintessential objectivity - is an idea or argument. However, I'm not going to revert it, just thought I'd see what you thought of my opinion. Take care. Tan | 3906:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I mainly used the OR thing as an excuse to not write a long edit summary (I was really tired last night but didn't feel like going to bed). I totally agree with you. However, I removed it mainly because I don't think it should be there in the first place. I don't think the rate at which the space increases benefits the article in any way. It seems like trivia to me. I think the sentence sounds just fine with the phrase, "continuously increasing free storage." I just think that it's not needed information, and no one really cares about the rate anyway. Thanks for not reverting it without explanation; I'm waiting to hear your feedback. — FatalError02:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I disagree with you there; almost every article on Wiki has information that wouldn't be considered essential. Obviously someone cared about the information - in fact, several months back, there was a big talk page discussion on how to present the current storage, whether to present the rate, and how often to update the storage space. I am not one for trivia - lots of articles, especially regarding fictional characters or TV shows, have so much "trivia" that I think I'm reading IMDb. In this case, however, I don't think that this hurts the article in any way - i.e., it doesn't compromise its integrity or credibility - and I don't think it's that far-fetched to imagine that some people might find this useful or interesting. On that note, I'll leave it up to you to make the final inclusion decision! Oh, and maybe don't make lazy edit summaries anymore ;-) Tan | 3902:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah okay thanks for the advice. Well I guess you're right. I'll add it back in. I just thought it was redundant. But yeah, it wouldn't hurt the article, so you're right. — FatalError02:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But the article does not currently establish the subject's notability, so I still think it ought to be deleted. — FatalError04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added a tag for additional references in the LimeWire page. Can you describe which sections you feel are poorly referenced? Is the page still poorly referenced or could you replace these with citation needed for individual statements you feel are contentious? Maybe this was archived in the LimeWire talk pages. Thanks, Bpringlemeir (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, it was me. It was really long ago, but I'm guessing I added the tag because, at that point, the article had very few third-party sources; the majority of them were from LimeWire's website. The article seems to have improved since then; feel free to remove the tag if you feel the sources are fine now. — FatalError04:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
