Select Page

User talk:Seb26/Archive/13

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Spebi. No further edits should be made to this page.

Congratulations, please help with more improvements

Spebi, congratulations in your new role as a featured portal co-director. I look forward to your continued efforts to help improve Wikipedia's portal namespace. Along those lines, I am asking for your help. Please take a look at the portal peer review for Contents and megaportals. Just like adding featured portal co-directors, it is a part of a larger portal namespace improvement drive. All of your comments, suggestions and participation in this improvement effort will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, RichardF (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the Tasmanian Portal FPOC as unsuccessful. Be sure to bring it back there in a month, it's definitely a good portal, worthy of FPO status for sure. Best regards, Rt. 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realised it was unsuccessful because it could not be successful because I had already withdrawn it. Thanks anyway. Spebi 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but just for the record. :) Rt. 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Alternative music December 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 9 - December 2007
"He didn't really talk until he got his girlfriend, and somehow that jump-started his ego, and he went from 'I am Lou, I am nothing' to 'I am the greatest.' He just went ffffft, just flipped the scales. And then he started talking a lot. And then I was realizing from a lot of the things he was saying, 'Hmmm, maybe I don't like Lou.'"- J Mascis
Project news
New members

Pjoef, WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden, Argezas, Pbroks13 and Paper Back Writer 23 joined the alternative music fold during December.

Editors

User:CloudNine
User:WesleyDodds


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

happy Mango season

Happy New Year

Dear Spebi, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further powderfingercr... and nationalist conquests ;) .... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

re: Portal:Featured portals

See Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. I actually planned to move the other featured content related portals from Wikipedia to Portal namespace soon too, as proposed at their talk pages a wile ago. Cheers, —Ruud 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains

Can you please comment on: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains. (What I'm sying is PLEASE SUPPORT! :D) And please comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Chevelle, I am trying to get as many reviews as possible so I can skip to FA. Cheers. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only support if I see that the articles are fit for featured article status. I'll have a quick look at them later, I'm in the middle of something else right now. Spebi 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Odyssey Number Five

Hello Spebi, I think I've assuaged your concerns at the FAC. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks so much for your helpful commentary. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look when my mind is free from Powderfinger bias. Good work so far, though. Spebi 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muahaha...your mind is never free :P — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You're being assimilated... Keilanatalk(recall) 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a spare minute, I think that we've taken care of all your concerns. Thanks so much for the in-depth review! Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned talk pages

Hey, your message got lost on my talk page. Thanks for cleaning out that list, and happy new year! east.718 at 02:14, January 2, 2008

You too! :) Spebi 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

This newsletter is a monthly newsletter with details relating to events and happenings within the Australian Wikipedian community and WikiProject Australia. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or receive it in a different format, relist your name appropriately at the subscription page. Delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Candidates for Deletion

Hello, I just finished talking to jj137 ♠ about a page he deleted, "My Michelle", by Guns N' Roses. I was pretty upset when I found out the page was deleted, because that's one of my favorite Guns songs, and it had a lot of info on it, which is hard to track down on the internet. He undeleted it for me, but said that he only deleted it because it's tag was expired; he had nothing to do with tagging it in the first place, and said I should voice my concerns to you.

Keeping that in mind, the tag said it was proposed for deletion because it lacked "notability". This is what I wrote him regarding that:

Firstly, it is a song from what is undisputed considered a landmark album. While I am not very familiar with the official policies on album articles, it is certainly an unofficial convention that just about every song from a landmark album is considered notable due to its presence on said album. Just because it wasn't released as a single doesn't mean it is not notable. Please see The Dark Side of the Moon or pretty much any Beatles album for examples. Secondly, disregarding the "landmark album" angle, it is a song that is rather famous for its content. The story behind the song is famous and has intrigued many people; just do a Google search for the story behind it. Thirdly, following logic similar to the second reason, it is simply a loved song. I know from viewing pages on the internet and just my own experience with friends and other fans that this song is very popular, and deleting the page does a great disservice to any fan that wants to learn more about it.

Finally, I'd just like to say that whether or not a song is from a notable album or whatever, Wikipedia has becomes a great resource for fans of just about anything: video games, music, movies, whatever. When an article such as this is deleted, it really does a great disservice to fans who are just skimming and looking for info: the type of people that aren't active and don't participate in Wikipedia maintenance or what have you, but still make up a very large portion of the user base. I would ask that that be kept in mind when looking at potential articles to be deleted, when they relate to a cultural (and ESPECIALLY musical) matter. I mean, if Wikipedia is really hurting to get rid of some pages, there are plenty of absolutely useless import model pages laying around. But of course, I suppose that's all in the eye of the beholder.

GrimmC (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrimmC. Jj is right, his part in the deletion was minimal despite the fact he actually made the deletion. I proposed that the article be deleted because there were no claims of notability in it. This does not mean that the song is not notable, full stop. This means that I could not find any part of the article that meets a single criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (music) (which I strongly recommend you read). My grandma may be the oldest superstar in Hollywood but everyone knows her under a completely different name – if I was to write an article about her and just put "she is my grandma", it would be obvious that the subject is not notable; however, she clearly is notable, yet the article has not said anything about her being a superstar. Articles need to say why they are notable, or face being presumed to be non-notable. You see how this works?
I'm not sure about unofficial conventions on other websites, but our official conventions are listed on Wikipedia:Notability (music). The unofficial convention of "every song from a landmark album is considered notable due to its presence on said album" will not apply here. If you find that the song "My Michelle" meets any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (music), in particular, criterion 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable", then I advise you to tell me about this.
I know it seems like it is important to have a base of all music-related information and all that other stuff, but we can't just create articles over nothing and expect people to consider them to be reliable. It's true, we're trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. But we're also trying to make it a reliable encyclopedia. If we were to be as comprehensive as comprehensive gets, would you want to read through thousands of articles about your virtually-unknown neighbours and include totally inaccurate information? If you have been paying attention to technology-related news in the past few years you would know that Wikipedia isn't considered to be the top source for information when researching a topic on something that Wikipedia covers, especially considering the fact that anyone can change any detail without providing any source whatsoever, and can do it without anyone immediately knowing who they are. We're trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia here, but at the same time we are trying to make it a reliable encyclopedia.
I've had another look at the article and have noted that no sources whatsoever have been used in the article. I'm not particularly sure about the other criteria and if the track meets them, so I'll leave that up to you to decide. Basically, by that guideline, singles are automatically considered to be notable, yet other tracks are different. This passage is from the guideline I keep citing in my reply to you:
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
I am willing to give you another chance to rewrite the article My Michelle. If you can find reliable sources, and I can't stress this enough, reliable sources that verify the claims in the article about the subject or find that the song charted highly on major charts or won significant awards, feel free to rewrite the article from scratch (if you want, I personally find it easier to work from scratch and know what you're writing rather than to improve with all existing text polluting your mental workspace) and include these claims. If you're not particularly sure what counts as a reliable sources, check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I'm not trying to wipe out all articles that aren't sourced or aren't blatantly notable. I'm trying to do my best for the project. If you do need help with the article at any time, you can contact me and I'll do my best to try and help. Spebi 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o. I hear ya on the notability thing--it rather annoys me when I read an article that has no sources. It just upsets me when articles are outright deleted. Fortunately, I happen to have a copy of Slash's autobiography at arm's length, so it will be no problem at all to add in a reliable source. In fact, that's how I discovered the article was deleted to begin with--I've been going through all the Guns N' Roses articles I have reliable info on and have been updated/adding sources to them. I'll check it out in a moment. Just as soon as I'm done reading the notability guidelines, heh.
Okay, so I read the guidelines and re-wrote the article a little bit, but not too much because I already liked its format. But most importantly I added some new info and found some sources for the various claims it makes. Hopefully this will be acceptable.
Cheers! GrimmC (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great work so far! :) I'll do my best to track down some other sources to help out. Thanks for your co-operation in the matter. Spebi 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jj, just letting you know that perhaps it is better to notify the proposed deleter of an article that you are going to restore it. It is not really required, however, it is probably better in the long run to let people know of things related to them or their actions. Just a friendly reminder. Cheers, Spebi 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. I usually remember; I told him he could contact you but forgot to do so myself. Again, sorry!   jj137 ♠ 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armless

As the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armless, what would you suggest should be done with Category:Bethany Hamilton albums, also mentioned in the discussion? I apparently have to wait four days before tagging an empty category for speedy deletion, but that seems pointless -- there is no evidence Bethany Hamilton will be launching a music career -- but at the same time, the category seems to have been (mistakenly) created in good faith as a response to the creation of the hoax article, so it can't properly be considered vandalism. --Popplewick (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if we just sit the 4 days out on this one. The category doesn't meet any other CSD criterion but putting it through a CfD debate would be pointless. . Spebi 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. --Popplewick (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland's portal peer review

Hello Spebi. Since you've been a recent portal peer reviewer, I request your input at the Iceland Portal's peer review. All general feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks! [sd] 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few comments, not many though. Spebi 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

I actually have a lovely script that does that for me, quite handy really. It also puts in the AFD templates. Keilanatalk(recall) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy, I'm probably one of the only admins who uses Twinkle 'cause something screwed up my rollback and I don't know enough Java to fix it. :S Keilanatalk(recall) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep it around for RC patrolling, namely that nice "Rollback AGF" feature. Can I take a peek at your monobook? Keilanatalk(recall) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I have all that you've got except that block thing, and I usually write my own block messages. Take what you want from my monobook, you'll probably find a lot of it useful. Keilanatalk(recall) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the signature oppose

I would like to personally thank you for defending my position, even when not asked. But I've left a comment there, just before it grows into something uncontrollable. Regards, Rudget. 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Comments like that are totally unnecessary. Spebi 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandal

Hi, I'd just like to take a moment to thank you for promptly blocking the fellow who kept vandalizing my user page. I wasn't sure if posting the report on AIV was the correct response on my part, so I'm glad that you took care of it. Thanks again for the immediate response. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Spebi 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(Note to self: 1 days to go)"

...yes? ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category needs to be deleted. Spebi 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. Powderfinger

I R evil, thus replied on my talk page :D — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful review! I would like notify you that the Iceland Portal has now been nominated for featured status. Comments and suggestions are welcome at the discussion. Thank you, [sd] 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November Rain Appraisal

Hello again, I was wondering if you could review the article for "November Rain" to see if the two things it is tagged with (not enough references and weasel words) could be removed. Also, if you could appraise it for the Guns N' Roses project, that'd be cool too. (Unless it doesn't need another appraisal.)

Thanks, GrimmC (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 WEEKS

Very well. I put it as PROD for not being notable. RogueNinjatalk 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Vancouver tornado

Thanks for jumping in with the ((underconstruction)) template. Truly appreciated :D E_dog95' Hi ' 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was told I missed you on IRC by all of three minutes. Apologies for the linking, I meant no harm by it. Mønobi 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]