User talk:Digestion
Thanks
[edit]Hi there. Thanks for your edits to Field of Reeds and related articles recently. Much appreciated :) — foxj 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| You did a great job on Desire Lines, so just keep up the excellent work. HotHat (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi! Thank you for your edits to Surgical Steel (album). When adding a reference to an online review, please include a URL, so that the information you add can be verified by other users. I have fixed the citation for the information you added to include the URL, along with other relevant info. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake! Thanks for catching it. I appreciate your help keeping this Surgical Steel page updated. Can't wait to hear the final album! Digestion (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey! Just wanted to let you know that I removed the info you added about "Thrasher's Abbatoir". The reason I did is that giving information like that, and then just a link to the actual recording on Youtube (actually, you forgot the url again, but that's not the reason I removed it), is not sufficiently sourced. This is considered original research. We would instead have to source it to a publication discussing where the song originally came from; for example, a review by a magazine, saying "and they re-recorded this old demo song for the album". Just thought I should explain my edit. Everything else you added looks great! I did move your sources into Template:Cite web, but if you want to continue adding them the way you have, no problem, it's easy enough for me to move them to the template. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I need to get the hang of the visual editor. It's great, but apparently I don't know how to insert links into citations. I apologize for that. Regarding "Thrasher's Abattoir," is it not sufficient to show that the band recorded a song with that title in 1985 that never appeared on any of their other releases? I'm sure the fact will be mentioned in a review, probably within the next couple weeks, but I just don't quite understand why the way I added the info is unacceptable. Digestion (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've tried using the visual editor, and I can't say I'm a fan of it. For now I'm sticking with the basic editor.
- Unfortunately no, that isn't sufficient. On Wikipedia, we report what reliable third-party sources say, according to WP:RS. Doing our own research and reporting it ourselves is original research, and we can't put that kind of information up. This would include us reporting that the song is a re-recording; someone else would have to explicitly state this, and then we can report that's what the source said. The other problem is that until we hear the album, we don't know that the songs are the same (they could have recycled the title for a new song). There's nothing wrong with waiting for someone to mention that the song is a re-recording before adding that information to the article, we're in no rush to have the article finished immediately. Anyway, please don't take this as anything personal, as I've said above the rest of the information you have added has been great! It's just that Wikipedia has these rules, and even though occasionally they seem dumb, overall they're good rules to follow. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- That all makes sense. No hard feelings! We both just want high-quality articles. Digestion (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Digestion. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Baby Teeth (band) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Teeth (band) 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.