Jump to content

User talk:Iadmc/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Can you help advertise this new bot?

There is a new bot which I requested and Tim created:

Possibly around 20% of articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs have references This bot lists 300 articles, tagged as an unreferenced BLP, which have 5 or more references.

The bot information is here: [1]

I am asking two other editors to advertise this, and will post it on active BLP policy pages and projects. Please help get the word out for this new tool.

Thanks. Okip 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of the Bot? How does it operate exactly (what does it cross reference precisely etc)? What information do editors have to supply to the operator for it to work (eg Wikiproject name, categories, etc)? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 03:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It has no name. What the bot does is it looks for articles that have 5 or more http links but is still marked as unreferenced. Every day the bot lists 300 articles that meet this criteria.
The bot simply gives a list. There is no input needed by editors. An article is removed from the list when the unreferenced blp template is removed, the article is deleted, or the article has less than 5 http references. Okip 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated list is here:
http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/Static/Referenced_Blps.html
Okip 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification: I'll check out the link and see what I can do to promote the bot. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 06:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So!

you could be next!! make one for you ?..Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait till the whole infobox thing is over. RfC has a few days left, so I'll ask WP:CTM after that, Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 17:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

my sig

Thanks for pointing this out, I have been having some trouble with the sig function for some reason on my home computer, (it selects paragraphs, rather than positioning it at the end of sentence). Thought I had sorted this but evidently not so. I have now corrected. If I have a point to make (and whether I ever have a point to make is a matter of debate I suppose) I always try to do so straightforwardly rather than by messing about with the comments or layouts of others. Don't know who made the gif, I'm afraid.Best - --Smerus (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I did seem a bit out-of-character (note my other comment on your talk page, also)! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
ta btw for your coments re User:Bvrly. He seems rather a sensitive plant, but all the same that doesn't give him the right to plaster gibberish incorrect or misleading information on WP. I have taken (as you have probably seen) to providing lengthy explanations when I edit his texts, as he has a fetish conviction that Felix Mendelssohn's success was entirely due to the mysterious Dr. Chipp. I think his responses to me however are a bit of an own goal (which is why of course I have left them up). --Smerus (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
np. FWIW, I had heard vaguely of this Dr Chipp, perhaps in some aside in some book or lecture somewhere on FM. Anyway, Bvrly obviously has some sort of strange personal attatchment to the doctor, as you say; maybe he's Dr Chipp's ninth cousin four times removed or some such? Whatever, no excuse for violating clear (and rather obvious) policy... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Was wir sind article

hi, I saw you added another reference to this article....those chart listings are listed at WP:BADCHARTS as a website to avoid. Might be better to take the reference out? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... cheers. Thanks for the heads up. Will do. Also on her other song, now, so that too will be removed. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, The Was wir sind article has been updated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I spotted that last night but am still unsure how to proceed regarding my present vote as I haven't yet checked the sources. I still think the nom should withdraw, however, given the circumstances --Jubilee♫clipman 09:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Second (well actually fourth or fifth, I lost count!) thoughts: speedy keep. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
One other thought: your campaigning messages to the three editors that voted against the keep vote probably wasn't a brilliant idea. That said, you did only point out that new sources had been found even if you did only inform those three editors. Best to avoid it in future, however, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I did consider the matter before posting and thought the wording was completely neutral. I'm still lost to understand what is campaigning about the message. If your online in the next hour or so, could you suggest a wording that would be acceptable for you. I was thinking that an audience of editors that disagreed with me is nonpartisan but now you have raised the issue, informing everyone seems sensible. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah... campaigning in the sense I understand it is "messaging only those opposed to your point of view in order to persuade them to change their mind, whether blatantly or subtly". In this case, you pointed out only to those opposed to you, albeit neutrally, that you had added references to the article. This could be seen as subtle campaigning. It almost certainly wasn't your intention to campaign, but it could appear that way. on reflection. I had to specifically look at your contribution history to check it out: doubt many others would! No problem my end, though: I guessed you hadn't actually meant to campain. This is just a gentle prod from a fellow editor who's ah... been there done that as it were... ahem --Jubilee♫clipman 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So I take it you are happy with the message wording? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wording was fine. Don't worry: I am just a paranoid with more time on my hands than is good for me  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

WP Composers in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article to be published April 12. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, feel free to share this with them. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mabeenot. There is certainly plenty to say... I'll chat with the others and see if they are willing to participate. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for the support re capitaliz(sorry, s)ation. I see that we live in the same city - fancy a pint sometime? --GuillaumeTell 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No prob and sure: mine's a Guinness! Kleinzach mentioned you some time back in an email, actually. I had meant to call on you but never found the opportunity as we always seem to be working on parallel articles without ever encountering each other! Email?
Fine. You don't seem to have email enabled from here (and BTW, your userboxes are extending off the RH side of my screen and therefore difficult to see from where I'm sitting - I had to click Edit to see what they are - so I guess you don't use IE), but you can email me via the box down at the bottom of my scruffy User page.--GuillaumeTell 15:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll try emailing you and see what happens. Not sure why my mail won't work your end though... bike might be quicker, anyway! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Template conflict at Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Hello Iain

I don't know what went wrong but the top of Wikipedia talk:Record charts is garbled after your recent addition of a template about audits. Can you go back and fix it? (I don't see what went wrong, myself, so my best idea would be to revert your edit. There must be a better way.) Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Has {{Clear}} helped? I notice another editor had added it in another MoS after the audit template, presumeably for similar reasons, so I thought I'd give it a go see if it helps. No problem my end, BTW, but then again I use a very wide screen at high resolution so I probably won't normally notice template clashes and the like --Jubilee♫clipman 06:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all better now. I guess the talkheader template wants to be at the top above everything else; maybe it's using some absolute positioning or something. Anyway, thanks, and happy editingauditing! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Any help you can give with the audit would be appreciated. Glad to hear the template problem is solved, anyway. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi. Possibly Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Points of contention and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Proposals subpage will give you a better idea of what's going on. I'd like to do more, but I'm running out of energy. Maurreen (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maurreen. Those section certainly clarify things somewhat. Have voted. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 16:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Music Auditing

Hi, thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. As I understand it, you require help in ensuring that music articles conform to the standards set out in WP:MOSMUSIC, WP:MUSTARD etc.? Dark Prime (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more to ensure that those guidelines are consistent, understandable and useful. Copyediting would be a good start but there are greater issues to consider: should MUSTARD remain separate; should it remain in Project space; should the "lesser" guidelines (possibly including MUSTARD) be merged into the main MOSMUSIC; etc? By scrutinising these several guidelines (those two only the beginning...) we can begin to make sense of the purpose of them and ensure they are indeed used to ensure "that music articles conform to the standards". This all arose from question over the main MOS. Avoid that if you like (!) but help with these guidelines would be great. So far: Music, Music samples, Musicians, Record charts, Billboard charts guide, Classical music, Songs, MUSTARD, Punk music, Albums, Composers, Opera, Contemporary music, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings). The bolded guides claim WP guideline or MoS status... Quote a task to make sense of that lot and quite a lot to expect editors to "conform" to, IMO. Any thoughts? I have started my audition at the top level. I think I link to my userspace versions of those? If not, I'll do so in my next post if you are able (and willing) to help. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Music Vs BLP

I think you might like to reconsider this post. Strange but true a song has a higher bar to meet then a BLP. Perhaps you care to show otherwise? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... I don't recall a mass deletion of unsourced song articles! :P But I take your point: song articles do need to show that they are important enough to warrant an article of their own. That said, I was talking about people and groups of people not songs or albums in that post. perhaps I should make that clearer... Thanks for the heads up, anyway: I'll reconsider how to rephrase it to make my point clearer --Jubilee♫clipman 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Well... but they could. ;) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm... that's a GOOD point... 8-O Anyway, I refactored out the stuff about bands as that was a little misleading, perhaps. (I also took the opportunity to add a qualifier to the post I made at that user's talkpage...) Cheers SC! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my Talk Page

Thanks for the info and message on my talk page. In my questions at WP:Music, I really was just trying to understand this for the future, not deal with any current issue. If you are curios about the actual story on the AFD, it is probably most objectively summed up in my discussion with the closing admin at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:EyeSerene. In short, the duo of identities that made a clever, wiki-ssavy, unobjective mentally-invested assault on this article manipulated the process, and the closing admin did the best and most objective job that they could in deciding this AFD in that environment, and I have the highest regard and thankfulness for the closing admin and their kindness. If there is any possible question on the admin's decision, it would be that they chose one side of an interpretation (opposite yours) where even the opinions of the experts directly conflict with each other. Fundamentally, that is whether wp:music structurally merely helps implement/interpret wp:GNG, or is it a second route to notability. In essence they said that meeting wp:music is irrelevant if the band/article does not solidly meet GNG. If you feel like looking at that, I would be curious about your thoughts. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the ah "other parties involved" as it were... no comment :) One the point about favouring WP:N even when WP:MUSIC is met... not sure yet but I didn't see any precise contradiction in what the admin said and what I (and others) said. I'll look into it though, for sure. Note the comments just above also, mind!  ;) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions closed

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Glad to see those gone... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

a consensus

in the record charts talk page I posted this:

for the past couple of days, I've been having problems concerning the situation involving the Between The Lines wiki page. What I find redundant is the fact that the Alternative Songs is removed from the page because of the idea that the chart itself is a component to another. I think it's a bad thing to do. Look at every rock song's wiki page. They all have the three Billboard rock charts. The reason the Alternative Songs chart got removed from the Between The Lines is because it peaked higher in the Rock Songs chart. I know a few songs that peaked higher in Rock Songs than in Alternative (examples: The Good Life by Three Days Grace, Your Decision by Alice in Chains) and I never once saw the Alternative Songs chart removed from those pages. And that's why I'm requesting for the Alternative Songs chart to be shown again on the Between The Lines song's wiki page so that I don't have to be blocked for a extended period of time.

can u help me out?David1287 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds complex, but I'll see what I can do. I'll have to look at all the relevent discussion to contextualise your statement above, however. Are you at risk of getting Blocked for violating policy? Eg WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL? Which particular Between The Lines page, BTW? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Checked you contributions: Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song). Will look further... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Between the Lines (Stone Temple Pilots song) - I'm afraid I concur with Keraunoscopia and Welshleprechaun on this. Edit warring over a componant chart seems a little over the top, also: I'd just let it drop and see if others wish to reistate the chart --Jubilee♫clipman 03:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ha ha

Review

Hi, I am writing an an article about a piece by Eric Whitacre, and I was wondering if you or someone from the Contemporary Music Project could review it for me. It's for a class at college. I am new to wikipedia so any help or comments would be great. Thanks so much! Panzak7 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

USCHARTS

Hi Jubilee. We've had no further responses regarding the status of WP:USCHARTS in terms of whether it should be a guideline or style guide. Current consensus appears to be that it is a valid policy and the community appears to be treating it like one. Would it not be simpler to merge USCHARTS into record charts under the US charts section and keep its shortcuts? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. If Since the page is now more or less finalised, we can go to the next stage as described by Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposals. If I follow it correctly, what we need to do is create a new section in the talkpage explaining the proposal and add {{rfctag|policy}} to the top of that section (groan...). Next, we need to advertise the proposal at "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and add it to Wikipedia:Centralized discussions for its duration". We should also advertise at related WikiProjects. (WP:WPMUSIC would be a good start, I guess. Any others?) Hope that makes sense? (Took me a while to get my head around it all!) I can intitiate all of this if you like? --Jubilee♫clipman 14:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we hold fire? I'm just going to initiate one more discussion following changes made by billboard. Then we can continue the process. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No rush, so that's fine. Let me know when you are ready to proceed. In the meantime, I'll make sure I fully understand the process involved --Jubilee♫clipman 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jubilee. There's been some minor policy changes thanks to further discussion at WP:record charts. The article is ready to be copyedited and most definately ready to begin promotion to policy/guideline status. (although for the sake of rationalizing MoS it could be merged to WP:record charts#United States charts Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been watching from afar and the changes look good, IMO. I'll copyedit over the next few days and then have a chat with Tony1, SlimVirgin and the others to try to figure out how best to deal with the page. I am at a dead end with the other audits, at the moment, BTW, as I await comments on my appraisals. You might want to look over this RfC and the other postings on that (huge) talkpage to get some idea of how WP:Words to watch went from embryo to MoS in a few short weeks. As I say, there is never any rush, especially if we want to get this right. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Bit of background...

[2], [3], [4] Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You spotted my sandbox edits then...? And I was aware of those debates and blocks but couldn't find them immeadiately. Thanks for that. I am trying to word my responce very carefully, BTW... it might take me some time. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 16:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I do have your box on my watchlist, from when the first drafts of the new infobox were being done.:) Anyhow, it will be a very wearing discussion, whatever anyone writes given the past record. I've decided just to say my piece, leave it at that, and trust the closing admin. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That's why I am writing so much! I am intending to post-and-run, as it were so I want to make sure I cover all bases. I suspect the admin will keep the box, though. Ye Gods, even Smerus has voted !keep, for goodness sake! I wonder if Eusebeus or Opus33 are awake yet... Or Kleinzach, for that matter.  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW --Jubilee♫clipman 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Demos, etc.

Thank you Let me start off by saying that I appreciate your input and also that it's likely to be moot as I have already reviewed every article in Category:Demo albums. For that matter, a significant majority of the articles that I listed for deletion were deleted, which is contrary to your assertion on my talk page (many of them were prod-deletions.) I may have overestimated how clear my argument was, but it runs something like this: per WP:MUSIC, demos are not treated like typical studio albums to the extent that they are not assumed to be notable even if the artist is notable. Consequently, all demo albums have to have an extra burden of proof that they are worthy of having their own articles. This is as much a WP:MUSIC issue as it is a WP:SIGCOV issue, I suppose. Again, thanks for your note and if you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability, etc. I think you may well be right about problems with WP:MUSIC, but I'm not necessarily equipped to fix them. Your for-instance of The Beatles songs is a poor example in my estimation, as every Beatles song will have significant coverage in several publications. I've no doubt that you can expand every one of these articles with substantial third-party coverage. Really, that's what notability in music-related articles comes down to in my mind: album-related articles are assumed notable by virtue of their artists and everything else has an extra hurdle of third-party coverage. Consequently, not every song by Talking Heads warrants an article (there would be nothing to say on most other than original research), but every album warrants an article (as there will certainly be enough material to create a meaningful article.) I don't know if that helps, but there you have it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Morocco

Hi!
Maybe in the past I was a little upset, and I had problems, but will not accept revisionist history information.Bokpasa 09:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection Thanks. I'm sure cooler heads can prevail and a better article can be written if these two authors will simply post to talk and provide sources for their edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks I'm sure that you can see that my actions are not as out-of-order as to warrant an AN/I post, nor has any conflict between this user and myself gotten as heated as to justify skipping the dispute resolution process entirely. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's an entirely over-the-top and near-disruptive action, IMO. You have your style of editing which is obviously very different from his. I got into trouble a while back for sending a load of composer articles to AfD but never got sent over to ANI because of it. Mediation is the better way forward and is indeed the first port of call --Jubilee♫clipman 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay Of these articles that I have nominated for deletion, 42 were deleted through AfD, approximately a dozen were deleted through prod, 15 were merged/redirected, and only four passed. I think that this is a reasonable ratio showing how the clear majority of these articles should not have existed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah Thanks. As you can see yourself, I also posted this information at the notability discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Book:Frédéric Chopin

Bonjour Jubilee,

I added links to articles in which Chopin is mentioned because of his relationship with either these people or places. Liszt & Marie d'Agoult: Chopin dedicated his important œuvres Études op. 10 to Liszt & op. 25 to Marie. Felix Mendelssohn should be there, but the article in English makes no mention of Chopin, which is unfortunate. Église de la Madeleine in Paris also, and again no mention of Chopin's quasi national funerals in article in English, so I skipped it. Whenever I have more time, I'll be adding a few more as important in my view as George Sand. In fact, right now I am adding Carl Filtsch, the child prodigy who was Chopin's student in Paris.

Adding a comment at Book's talk page.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Frania!
I Saw the comment there before this... I saw the talkpage roll by on my watchlist! I have commented there so other can see and comment also. 100% agree that Filtsch should be there, not so sure about the others: see the talkpage for why. Thanks for your work!
Au revoir (but not adieu, I hope) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Jubilee,
I just left a comment on the talk page. We probably will end up agreeing as I am not going to put what you think may be redundant. We can always discuss.
Très certainement "aurevoir", mais pas "adieu" ! --Frania W. (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done We agreed! That's a first for me... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

RFC listing

Which listing are you referring to? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This Your view gets transcluded into the listing if the summary isn't signed. The bot will catch up in a few hours and remove it. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iadmc/Archive_6&oldid=1078892765"