User talk:Megamanic

Welcome!

Hello, Megamanic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karma fist 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hemispheres

Many of the Rush album articles are teeming with original research. The subject has been discussed on the Rush talk page and a few of the regular Rush editors have done some clean up. More is definitely needed. The Powerwindows website is a well of trivia tidbits and odd stories that can be used as citation...but who has the time? . Take care! Anger22 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants). Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers!

R o gerthat ^Talk 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush, and a thing or two

Actually the trivia first - I'm just wondering (knowing full well it's a long shot) if you're the same Mike who was a friend and colleague of Simon Williams, and emigrated to Oz about 15 years ago?

On Rush, in most discography listings it would appear under its own sub-heading of EPs, as would the singles. My own take is that whilst it's pretty, the table for the albums is actually less useful than the simple lists that follow it. The lists as they appear below can scanned downward. The table demands that the user spend time reading across, because of the spacing, and can't be speed read. Cain Mosni 11:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Firstly - let's continue the conversation here. So much easier than bouncing back and forth.)

I'm not altogether convinced that the disography needs expanding. If anything, I'd say it needs simplifying. The table is uneccessary, and precludes easy reading. But adressing the EP question, there's no harm in having a single EP sub-section with just the one title under it. If there are singles missing from the discography they must certainly do need adding, along with catalogue numbers, labels and release dates. Your idea for a separate page for chart placings is an interesting thoguht, but I can see it being objected to as unnecessary cruft, and you might have difficulty in sourcing verifiable data. Certainly, I don't think the chart position data belongs in what should be a pure discography listing in the article itself. Cain Mosni 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the compromise that'll work is to have all of the core albums (New Material, Live & Compilations) in the Rush article and a link to a Rush discography page that has all of the releases in key territories (US, UK, Japan, Canada) Interesting variations from other countries guest appearences etc. In the main article the format I like most of all is the "gallery of sleeves" approach like Aerosmith which is a casual discography for non-fans. If you click on the "Rush Discography" page you're entering obsessive land where all stats can and will be collected :) I've certainly got a lot more singles than the ones listed there, Spirit Of Radio, Vital Signs, Subdivisions, Countdown, Big Money, Time Stand Still etc. I'm sure there's a dicography out there on the web that can be plundered and as the information is a matter of record (if you'll pardon the pun) it's not copyrightable Megamanic 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject American football?

I noticed that you're comments on the Formation (American football) page. Thanks! I tried resizing the images. Tell me what you think. Also, since you seem interested in the article, you might also be interested in a new project I recently started at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible. --Jayron32 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Linda Thompson need immediate attention?

Hi, I was browsing Biographical articles marked as needing attention, and I saw that you'd marked Linda Thompson (singer) as needing immediate attention, but I didn't see any indication of why. Can you explain further? --Xtifr _tälk 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for Sandy Denny. Xtifr _tälk 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockup :) Basically I thought both bios were in need of attention but I didn't think it would set a red light flashing in Wikipedia central. I was adding a musicians template & figured they were both a bit thin & needed more work so I added the needs attention flag. Reset the flag if you wish. Sorry Megamanic 02:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I actually gave Linda Thompson a little attention (though it's still a long way from featured article quality), and I'll look at Sandy Denny a little closer too, but in general, "needs improvement" is not the same as "needs attention". (The vast majority of the articles on Wkipedia need improvement.) Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greatest band....

well if its something recognizable or a nickname (like Michael Jaackson being the prince of pop) then its ok. but if its "america's greatest rock n roll band" then lose it. unless its something important like a big televised countdown of greatest bands or something. not just some random review of them. but if its a nickname, state its a nickname, and if the greatest whatsit reference is somehting important, don't put it in the opening paragraph. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i hardly feel that america's greatest rock n roll band is a nickname. calling new york the big apple is nickname, america's greatest rock n roll band is more of an opiniated rank. the statement itself states that the band is better than all other american bands. whether that statement is correct or not is based soley on personal opinion. as for saying "many regard them as..." while that may denounce the statement of bias (especially with 2 references.) it also denounces it of any importantce. it doesn't need to be said. its like saying many people think this band is good. you can look at record sales and figure it out for yourself. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 09:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pour Down Like Silver etc

Hi there,

Please take another look at the entry for PDLS and provide some more feedback. There's quite a lot of work to be done RE Thompson. I don't mind doing what I can, but I want to do it properly. Thanks for the feedback so far :-)

And is this (an entry on your talk page) the best way to get a wiki-related message to you?

Regards

Bob Dubery 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doremi Fasol Latido

The easiest way would be to make all the quotes indirect. e.g. rather than:

Lemmy claims to be an inept guitarist: “ When I was with the Rockin' Vicars in '66, '67, I couldn't play lead.."

You could write something like:

Lemmy has said that in the Rockin' Vicars from 1966-1967, he was a poor guitarist.

and so on...

As an example, I've been working on Kid A recently and have merged a lot of quotes into the prose. Compare with the old version to see what I mean.

As for sources, have you tried review sites like All Music Guide and Pitchfork? There are bound to be some more old music press articles archived somewhere too. Have a good googling session and I'm sure you'll find something! - Alex valavanis 09:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! It reads a lot better now. I've done some minor editing to give you some ideas for how to improve the markup and prose style for the rest of the article. I'll have another go a bit later. Cheers - Alex valavanis 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created one of those boxy things that seem to be popular which you may wish to add to pages if and when you edit them - see Hawkwind. Also, I've updated the members table to try to make it a little more readable - see whether you agree. Getting the articles to GA status I think will be a tall order, I'm quite happy with what we've acheived so far. I'll still contribute now and then, trying integrate notes, quotes etc into the prose but I think it's healthy that as many people contribute as possible. Drwhawkfan 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some thoughts about enhancing the overall article. A "Critical Reaction" section would be good, summing up, quoting and referencing reviews - there are links to comtemporary reviews in the External links section, more recent reviews are listed in the Infobox and you may find some others around, such as Head Heritage's [1]. A little more difficult would be expanding the remaining note into a "Title and Philosophy" section to expound upon Barney Bubbles idea, particularly in relation to "Space Ritual" (see User talk:Secret Squïrrel). Finally, more images etc, but Wikipedia seems to be cracking down on "Fair Use" abuse - I don't think you'll get away with an image of the band unless it's public domain, but an advert for the album may help. Sound files are limited to 30 seconds, so if you can think of a 30 second portion that adequately demonstrates the music of the album, tell me which and I can create an OGG file and get it uploaded for you. I think this is a step in the right direction to GA. Drwhawkfan 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Discussions on fair use

I wish I could point you to where these discussions are taking place. Except for WP:AN & it's mate WP:AN/I, & intermittently on the WikiEN-l mailling list, I don't know where this is being discussed. Maybe also at Wikipedia:Village Pump. And, IMHO, those fora appear to be full of people who are against fair use entirely, so they may not listen to an opposing voice.

I find this whole campaign against any fair use materials discouraging -- although sometimes I am too pessimistic about things, both related to Wikipedia or not. The rule -- as long as I've contributed to Wikipedia -- is that non-free materials may be used specifically to help identify its subjects. Examples would include the flag logo with Microsoft Windows, or the "death star" logo with AT&T (to name 2 US-centric ones). How else would one identify the Led Zeppelin album with the weird runes that some people label "ZOZO"? Beyond that, the rules become fuzzy very quickly (e.g., can one use a screencap to help identify significant commercials?), & I simply feel that those cases are not worth the effort to del with. (To give another example, I have a book or two that were published in the mid-1960s in Ethiopia -- at which time, from what I've been able to determine, the country had no functional copyright law. We could have weeks & weeks of fun deciding those cases.) Despite all of these qualifications (& rambling ;), I believe that there ought not to be such intolerance towards obviously justifiable fair-use cases. -- llywrch 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UFOWildWillingInnocent.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UFOWildWillingInnocent.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UFOMechanix.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UFOMechanix.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7

Hi Megamanic- I hope you see this message (looks like you still log in). I thought you'd like to know what's going on with your images Image:Teenage Fanclub Live 2003.JPG, Image:TFC Norman Blake 2003.JPG and Image:TFC Gerry Love 2003.JPG. Author-requested deletion of contributions is generally allowed (see Template:db-self) when the content is obviously useless for some reason. It is not allowed in the case where an author wants to leave the project. (This specification doesn't exist in the template text, but see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7 for a discussion of exactly this issue.) You of course do have the right to leave, but all of your edits (both text and uploads) remain GFDL and this can't simply be revoked. The GDFL is in part written to prevent just that- once the content has been pronounced free (as in Freedom), it cannot later be declared non-free, even by its creator[s].

Seeing your user page, I don't expect you to be happy with this, but I would be happy to discuss it. Sorry that you're leaving on bad terms- Staecker 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crowded House

Hi! I've seen you editing Crowded House related articles, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject Crowded House, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the band's coverage on the encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here.

--linca^linca 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Megamanic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ernie Zampese - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MuttonBirdsManchester.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MuttonBirdsManchester.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MuttonBirdsTooHard.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MuttonBirdsTooHard.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]