User talk:Laser brain

Welcome back Andy, it was great to see your name pop up on my watchlist today. How does it go, "I hope you like it here and decide to stay" (again)...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks, Ian! I was listening to The Rest Is History podcast recently and began to read some military history articles here. Soon, I was feeling nostalgic about being part of the community. I'm extraordinarily rusty but I hope to ease back in. --Laser brain (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoing the above: it was great to see your name pop up on my watchlist today - glad to see you back! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best Star Wars film by far. Lofi Gurl (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Musical Supply is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Musical Supply until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about templating your talk page.

Anyway, I think this article probably pre-dates when our policies about corporate notability firmed up. I tried to find WP:Golden Rule sources and failed. It seems to be a magnet for COI editors. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laser brain. I've seen you drop an oppose at Dredge, so I think it'd be helpful to have you review my FAC too; Rain World (nom). It would mean a lot. No worries if you cannot, of course! toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 17:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby: I'd be happy to review. I'm out of town tomorrow through Monday but I can make some time next week. --Laser brain (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 18:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Musical instrument has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't appreciate it that you closed off from further discussion despite me presenting my arguments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Question...?/archive1. You voiced your objection twice that the article did not discuss the song's themes and critiques, and whether the lack of behind-the-scenes development constituted non-notability. I replied twice that the song's themes and critiques are already covered in a section, and that the article definitely met notability requirements. What you did showed little care and consideration after you have cast your vote, even regarding a constructive discussion. Goodbye, Ippantekina (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: I'm sorry that you are disappointed with my feedback, but I simply don't agree with your arguments regarding the article's comprehensiveness. I didn't feel that the discussion was going anywhere. I don't feel like there is any serious analysis of the song or information about its development. Books like Zaleski and Somville & Benoit (which are heavily cited in the article) are fan-oriented and not serious pieces of music analysis. It's for the coordinators to determine what weight to give my feedback (or to disregard it altogether). That I took the time to review the article should indicate care and consideration. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]