Talk:Imusicapella

File:Imusicsapella.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Imusicsapella.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Imusicsapella.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imusicapella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120116001035/http://www.philippinechoraldirectors.com:80/members-2011.html to http://www.philippinechoraldirectors.com/members-2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Awards

Is this long section really needed? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to list achievements. A link to their website / Facebook page should suffice. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: I don't know anything about this group per se, but I think your assessment is correct in that there's probably a lot of WP:NOTEVERYTHING in the article that can be trimmed. Perhaps @Sumanuil has an opinion on this since they recently removed most of that content with this edit only to have it subsequently re-added. Just from looking at the article's page history though, it does seem like there's a lot of WP:SPAs (IP accounts including) who have been adding and re-adding that content and it could be that these accounts are somehow connected to the group. They could mean well, but at the same time they might not be very familiar with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Maybe the thing to do would be to remove the content one last time, but include a link to this discussion in the edit summary inviting those who feel it should be included to discuss things here on this talk page. They can't made to discuss things, but at the same time the WP:ONUS is upon them to establish a consensus for inclusion. If they continue to revert and re-add the content without discussion, then either WP:RPP or WP:AN3 are options which could be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Getting tired of repeating the rules to these people. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: I understand how such a thing can get tiresome. However, this time around you removed much more that you did the last time and now the article is completely unsourced. If the promotional content was a problem, but the sources were OK, then maybe there's a way to work with them; on the other hand, if this is really just a case of WP:TNT, then maybe WP:AFD is the thing to do. Trying to do something in between is not usually a good idea.

As for those who keep re-adding the content, all that you can do is explain why it's removed and invite them to discuss things here. If they simply keep re-adding it, then that's WP:DE and WP:EW; at the same time, if the problem continues then it might be best to seek assistance at WP:RPP or WP:AN3 instead or simply reverting them yourself. Back and forth reverts usually attract attention and case needs to be taken by all involved to make sure WP:3RR doesn't become an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll put at least some of the refs back. That was not my intention. Except for the Weebly one. - Sumanuil (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think you removed all the citations on purpose, but rather thought is was just done by mistake. Anyway, thank you for going back and checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sumanuil and Wyatt Tyrone Smith: I reverted the latest attempt at re-adding this. I left an edit summary explaining why and also a message on the editor's user talk page. I can't force them to discuss things, but at the same time they can't force Wikipedia to accept their version of the article. If you see the content being re-added again, the I suggest simply requesting that the article be protected at WP:RPP. That will should stop new accounts from being created just to re-add the content. If you feel a stronger response is warranted, you can ask for help at WP:AN3 or WP:SPI, but I'd start with RPP first since page protection usually is a fast and easily way to stop disruption like this. Now, if by chance the editor does show up here to discuss, try to remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF and give them a chance to explain their position. If there are problems, try to explain them in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As long as they discuss and don't go back to edit warring, things should be sorted out one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)