This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm still learning the interface of Wikipedia, it's a pretty steep curve. Thank you for your suggestions regarding my recent article. I decided that it would be useful to lay the foundation for future information to be added later. I will certainly finish the article when more information (bands) is announced. TheBlackening 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackening (talk • contribs)
Please check Massacre's talk page.--Raktoner (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I just thought you might be interested in creating a discussion about the alternate cover posted at Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album). It's too similar and it's kinda like the discussion that occurred with A Thousand Suns. Ga Be 19 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Great job on the rewrite. Seegoon (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any real organization with the Wikiproject Albums project? I'd like to get involved with programming/organization/making everything consistent and pretty (isn't that the point?), but I don't ever get a sense of true organization on Wikipedia, just people that like to fix things. In regards to the Track Listing template use, I feel that it's something that would allow for a more consistent look to all album pages. On the same lines as the above paragraph, how does one get to help out on the "fixing" of the Track Listing template? Thanks. Rlholden (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you please email me the scan of the Black Thorn review? I can not find it on their website and I do not have that issue. You can email me through this. (Sorry I am a bit wary about posting my email on the open interent) cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 16:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Friginator put the singles back up the instant you took them down. Then, he definitely 3RR'd, while I stopped before I did. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Inception - Score.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see you recently split a good deal of content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, article or project page, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors. When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject Albums Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you this barnstar for your great work on the expanson of the article content guidelines for the WP:ALBUM project, including the extraction from the main project page into a separate subpage. – IbLeo(talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
Thanks for uploading File:Past and Future Ruins.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Dave's arrest is not affecting their tour. I am good friends with them, they are still pushing forward. Let the band handle this, they know what they are doing. The only thing Dave needs is support right now. Please respect his privacy.--98.221.33.212 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't trying to post any kind of biased, since the Deftones have a drony, shoegaze type quality to their music. If i'm the only one who thinks that this is true, i'll stay out of it. I just try to show how many possible genres a song has to itself, and my biggest research method is just listening to the song. User:Coolbutlame —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for uploading File:Escapethefate-thiswarisours.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Fezmar! so i was wondering what u thought of my playing, check it out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLuOny6l1-A. Its a cover of a metric song, but i made it metal! lol. let me know what u think man. Ant_smusher (talk)
Thanks for cleaning up after me, didn't realize I was breaking the box until you pointed it out. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi guy.
Seems like we move in similar editing circles, so I was browsing your shit and saw that you had a selection of scans available. I've been working (on and off) on quite a lot of Isis-centric articles on here, and would love to give it that little bit of spit and polish needed. To that end, it would be awesome if you could provide me with the Isis content you have available – I see Decibel #71 and #73 have some content, respectively. I'm actually kinda surprised that there isn't more Isis stuff, given their gravity within those publications. Regardless, please let me know whether you might be able to oblige. Cheers, Seegoon (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
YOU FREAKIN' RULE. Thanks a million; I would never have otherwise been able to get my hand on some of that goodness. If a gold star should grace any of those articles you've aided in the future, a spoke of it will be dedicated to you. Seegoon (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious what's wrong with using first-party sources (see here). I would think, at least for something like an album release date and track listing, which isn't an opinion, that the original source would be preferred. Sites like Blabbermouth get their information directly from the record companies, so citing Blabbermouth instead of the original source seems unnecessary. I would also think that more sources are better, in case one source disappears — multiple sources provide accuracy far better than only one. Surat123 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't tag files for deletion if an album has this as its source "The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label". This is the standard valid souce information if you are uploading album covers. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you beheld KEN mode? If not, take a look at its 2011 album Venerable; it was released through the ever reliable Profound Lore Records.--Cannibaloki 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Botch-Unifying Themes of Sex.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I tried not to take it personal when I saw you came right behind me and reverted several hours of my time spent adding information to this article... and I can reach an agreement with you about the addition of the Extra Notes section, and how that could be considered "fancruft". So I lost a couple of hours by misjudging what content is welcomed and what content is considered to be mostly uninteresting to the majority of users. Ok... so now that I have (as much as I hate wasting my time) agreed with you about the first edit, which added that section, I have to disagree with you on the 2nd edit, made to the main/top entry. You used some pretty strong terms, and you made sure to include all possibilities of why my content was trash.
To quote the reason directly "(revert; this new information is unverified, trivial fancruft written in a non-encyclopedic tone and littered with original research)". Sting.
Most specifically Revision as of 14:58, 7 April 2011. This information I will ask you to reconsider, in relation to the second edit/addition, leaving the first out. My reasons for contesting the revert are that 1) it is verifiable 2) I do not consider information about extra tracks or major packaging differences, etc between two versions of an album to be "trivial", much less "fancruft" (if mine is considered to be merely fancruft, then I could argue the point that much of the information that you decided to retain is no less "trivial fancruft" than my additions). I went to add extra information as to WHY the bonus track diverted from the rest of the album's "rules" -- to explain why the track ShaunLuu was a "special track", as I was watching the DVD and they explained that the track was named after/in memory of a good friend of theirs who died of cancer. Fancruft? That depends who you ask, but I feel that is pertinent information. When you consider that most viewers visit a page because they are interested in the (band, for instance) and would like to know more detail and facts pertaining to them.
If everything on Wikipedia was kept strictly to staunch, rote and "basic facts and information only" (as was the intent), we'd have extremely short pages with little information. These are pages that I think to myself, "Wow... this is boring and the same basic information that can be found on 10,000 other sites, and makes this article disappointing and uninteresting", wishing the editors had spent a bit more time including more intimate or personal information about a subject. I understand this is site is ideally emulative of an Encyclopedia... facts, spit the information out and get going... but it's also the addendum; the extra information that I did not know that really makes me enjoy this site -- as probably my favorite site on the Internet. I intentionally look up bands and albums for that specific purpose of hopefully gaining some little extra bits of detail (like what I provided). I love information, and skimping and getting into grey, subjective areas like what and what isn't "fancruft", "trivial" -- "non-encyclopedic tone" (Who is to say? I tried my best to make the material proper and professional sounding. Not everyone is an English/Literature major, I did the best I could. It was hardly written "casually" or with total ignorance to grammar). I am merely trying to contribute extra information that I may be privy to, which the average listener or mediocre fan of the band may not know, but would like to. As said, if you need more references to these statements, I'll be glad to add further sources to prove that what I posted was factual information. Whether it's trivial or fancruft material is going to be contingent on individual users. IMO, if the information is more than they would like to know, the reader has the option to skip past it -- but the person who would have loved to have learned the information that "may have been" will never have the chance or choice... and I thought this was about learning new things. The love of knowledge and the craving to expand that knowledge as far as possible is what drives me to this site most days -- I can get a track list anywhere. I come to Wikipedia to get that extra information that you obviously deem as completely superfluous and of no value to the readers.
I know that's a mouthful, but I decided rather than get angry about me spending 2+ hours gathering and formatting information into what I considered "proper form" and information that I considered to be pertinent, valuable and interesting material vs. your opinion of it being irrelevant, inapplicable and trite; rather than just go off on you as I wanted to at first sight, this is the "right thing".
So, with my attempt at a defense and a counter-point paired with a possible compromise for you to consider... I ask that you please do so when it's convenient to you and please reconsider your nearly insulting rejection of my factual, verifiable, pertinent information in the second revision by me. As mentioned at the start, I can compromise by accepting the suggestion that the information about the hidden track may be viewed as superfluous, extraneous information; and agree to leave that out and call it my loss.
Rather than be stupid and just revert it back to mine, I decided to take the higher, encouraged/enforced approach to dealing with my disagreement and refer back to you on specifics in regards to: 1) why you feel, or more importantly, why the reading audience as a majority would feel the same way about the information that I provided in the first section 2) if you can see any merit in salvaging it, what problem(s) do you find with the additional information, and what do you feel that I could do to resolve your complaints? I understand there are rules, but there are always subjective opinions in rules like that... on what any single individual finds either very valuable information, or finds it to be inane and out of place.
Please let me know what resolution/agreement we can reach on the information in that edit, if any. If you're truly insistent that my (altruistic) contribution to the existing information is worthless, yet... then I suppose I will just call it all a loss -- and feel that any future contributions by myself would be a waste of not only my time, but those who come behind me to get rid of it; but nothing makes you want to stop contributing to a community effort like immediate deletion/removal of content that I spent hours of my time preparing and entering -- content that I didn't have to take my free time to add in the first place. Maybe I shouldn't in the future. Obviously the rules are not so clearly defined to me that I am truly grasping an objective concept from a subjective viewpoint. This website, by its very nature as a "peer contributed/maintained" wiki site allows for a bit more flexibility in what ultimately makes it "to press". Wikipedia may emulate or attempt to mimic an official Internet-based encyclopedia, but when the content itself is created and maintained by its own user base, you will see it reach an equilibrium between its fundamental intent/purpose -- and what the users/contributors of the site would ideally like to see it. Therefore, IMO, it becomes a reliable resource by the ToS/rules such as demands of references, citing info, etc to help facilitate the public's opinion of it as a trustworthy resource by ensuring that only factual and verifiable content is published, with additional checks and balances by peer editors to ensure that these measures are being taken, ultimately resulting in a sound, verifiable and consistent source of community created content. Just like you exercised that power to reject my information.
I'll cut it off there, I'm sorry for going on and on; I tried to keep it respectful and proper, regardless of my frustration and irritation towards the action.
As I understand, by interpretation of you and cited policy, "no information" is better than "information that could possibly be contrived as excessively detailed" by some users. That goes against my idea on the subject, which is that any information (as long as it is truthful and correct information, and not tastelessly excessive) has merit, and it should be left to the reader to decide whether they care to read/absorb that additional information or not. I'm gonna rest my case and lay it in your hands. Sorry, I'm babbling because I'm nearly dozing off while typing this. It's past time for bed, and I know to continue further would just be rehashed points on my behalf. Hope that I hear from you with a little extra detail which led to you forming the opinion that you did. Thanks for your time. Apologies again, for the length.
Bedtime, now. I have got one insane migraine-level headache, plus considering that I'm so tired, I have no idea why I have been typing so long instead of getting in bed to rest. I think it's just that I'm running off of fumes right now... my semi-conscious mind and body continue to carry on the task at hand, while the part that says "shut up and get in bed" *has* already done so. ;)
Wow... yeah. That's insane. I just previewed the post. Eff me... Sorry about that! I must have spaced out and the brain kept operating at a troll level. Just kidding. While I was way too verbose and should have reached a stopping point far earlier, at least I was not rude or disrespectful to you and kept things at an adult level (or so I feel) ----- I guess... See I'm doing it again. The brain just tries to keep going when the body has checked out. NO! Bedtime#@#! NO! signing off. Post it! Post!@! Gotta go while I have the chance. Our sanity is at risk at this point... both of ours. Bye bye...
ChinchX (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I will create this list. What do you think?--Malconfort (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:TracklistingTemplateFail.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the link to where the Examiner article was whitelisted and why wouldn't you put a hidden note in the article about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parting the Sea Between Brightness and Me, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.redefinemag.com/music/blogs_news.php?pageNumber=5.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Off the back of much of what you provided by way of magazine scans, I've gone and nominated Wavering Radiant for GAC. I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your keen eye across it and point out any issues which might provide a stumbling block throughout that process. Cheers. Seegoon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
These are all pretty minor issues. Overall I think it's a very well written and well sourced article! Fezmar9 (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |