User talk:Moeron/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moeron. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Moeron/Archive 1, 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! Kukini 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request for Phish

It seems that, for a defunct band, it would make sense to list members in a single group members, sorted by date-left(descending),date-joined(ascending). If the band were not defunct, the sorted list could thus be divided between current and former members. Making that division for current at time of dissolution also makes some sense, but seems less important. As to mediation, is it one anon ip with whom you seek mediation or several? StrangerInParadise 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are adding fuel to a troll's fire when you revert to a certain style in the Phish band members infobox. BabuBhatt 05:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is fine by me, since it doesn't deter me. I have changed a number of bands, mostly in the jam band "scene" to reflect band members and who was in a band when they broke up. Even with the dates there, people skimming the article will believe that there were five members of Phish when they broke up. That isn't the case. The cleaner and more precise these articles are, the more credible these pages can be ... then again, the POV of the Phish article is QUITE a challenge, I would love to go through and nix A LOT of fluffing of the band. *sigh* That Phish article is quite the headache. A big thanks, though, to you for doing the copy editing! --Moeron 14:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Attendance at Clifford Ball

The 70,000-80,000 number comes from Phish.net and it is cited as so at the end of that sentence. The quote from Phish.net:

The Clifford Ball was an absolutely phenomenal, unequivocably religious, amazing event at the former Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, New York, in August 1996. Phish performed three sets and an encore on each of the two show days, of a Friday-to-Sunday event, where some 70-80,000 fans camped on site for three days.

I'm gonna revert; just don't want to offend.
— Music Maker 04:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops: bad eyes. `— Music Maker

You know what is good for bad eyes *wink* ... anyway, it's all good.--Moeron 04:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Need assistance

Do you know of an admin to step in on User:68.112.25.197's constant reversions to Phish?BabuBhatt 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one sec, I have do it before in other instances.--Moeron 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and follow the guidelines. Once you have done so, let me and possibly User:MusicMaker5376 know so we can chime in our own personal comments there as well. I support you on this action.--Moeron 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good plan. I'm down. — Music Maker 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a new message to that page. Hopefully something will come of it. BabuBhatt 02:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Succession box

I'm thinking that a succession box for the festivals might be a good idea, but I'm kinda clueless on them. Going to make a small edit on the template to include pages like Phish and their music and Waterwheel Foundation, which I'm probably going to create sometime soon. — Music Maker 05:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we use bootlegs?

Something dawned on me earlier today. We're in an interesting situation: we're working on a band that, for the most part, has been caught on tape from day one. There is an ENORMOUS amount of Phish music -- even just in my meager collection -- that is, as far as I understand things, completely public domain. Or, at least, not-for-profit. In other words, that can be entirely included on WP.
I don't know if, when we refer to a specific moment in a concert, we can have the audio, like for the Big Ball Jam. Or we could include one selected live version on each song page, or even have one representative concert from each tour. However, I don't want to turn Wikipedia into a host for every Phish show ever recorded. I think we should SOMEHOW use them, if they're within our rights to do so. Any thoughts?
— Music Maker 05:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Will comment tomorrow. Must sleep ...--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 07:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather form here (under Duplication), I don't think use of bootlegs are allowed. Even though this is public domain, the band and its management have said a big "NO THANKS!" to other public domain projects, such as the Live Music Archive. If you want to get a formal answer, I say you should email the address at the bottom of the Phish.com page and see what they say. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 15:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, will do. At some later point. — Music Maker 18:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Signature

The "done" link on your signature doesn't work. I think you want to use this: [[Special:Contributions/Moeron]]. — Music Maker 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! That will work, but now that I have my own page for Completed Goals, I changed the coding to be directed to there. Cheers! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Janick Gers

I'm sitting here staring at the Dive Dive Live VHS cover, which is the exact photo of Janick Gers that I uploaded, so I'm wondering what basis you have for calling it into question. Just a hunch? I'd say it would take a lot more than a guess to remove a legally licensed photo. - Padgett22 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to take that up with the person who actually called it into question. I will look the person up right now.--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it was User:Meegs as per their rational here. Until this matter is resolved, the picture should not be up there. Please leave a message with Meegs about the image in question. Thanks! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Moeron. Thanks for notifying me of the ANI topic (now archived here), and apologies for not being accessible for the past week. As others have pointed-out, you did the right thing re-removing the images from articles. An important issue that was not addressed in the ANI discussion is that even if the image were a magazine cover, it only qualifies for fair use as a part of commentary on the magazine, not when simply used as a portrait for the person on the cover. I've discussed this before with User:Onlyslighted, who is almost certainly the same person as User:Padgett22. Thanks again. ×Meegs 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Galactic-Ruckus.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Galactic-Ruckus.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 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. Renata 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, fair use images have strict requirements because they are copyrighted and cannot be freely used. One of these requirements are fair use rationale: a very detailed explanation why you believe the image meets fair use criteria and why it can be used in a specific Wikipedia article. This rationale needs to be written for every page the image is used in. Hope it clarifies. Renata 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I do that for an album cover image for the album's article? Such as this image at Ruckus (album)?--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The rationale goes on the image page. There you make a separate heading ==Fair use rationale for [[whatever article the image is used in]]== and decribe in detail why this album cover quaifies as fair use. See for example, Image:Paper Clips poster.jpg. I know it's painful :) Also, if you uploaded any other fair use images, please do the same. Thanks for questions! Renata 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Image:Galactic-Ruckus.jpg now and tell me if this is acceptable or not? Thanks!--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Now repeat the same for all other fair use images... :) Renata 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyday (album)

I speedy deleted the mistake- next time, though, instead of copying to the right title, you can just click the "move" button at the top of the screen and rename the article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know ... and knowing is half the battle, haha. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Phish Cite

First of all, nice job.
Secondly, I don't know if it's just because I'm a complete idiot, but I can't figure out how those things work. While you were working on that, I posted another citation. It's for the chess game in '95; it's the same citation for Stephen Wright. If you get a chance, fix it, please.... — Music Maker 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will go fix that right now. Check out WP:FN for the examples and what-not on how I did the citations. I just can't believe it took me so long to find out how to really do this!. Cheers.--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to figure all that out as soon as I have a free moment. Right now, I am, of course, running to work. In the meantime, there's a {{ref_num|22}} in the "Climb to the Top" section, second paragraph. — Music Maker 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maiden photo

Sounds good. I've spent almost a year away from Wikipedia so there are some new rules I'm not akin to. That Iron Maiden page was a featured article last year so we truly need a good band photo in that box. Editing or removing images is great as long as the person who does the edits works to find an alternative. I'll be looking as well. Thanks - User:Sectornine 17:04 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as you might have seen, I found a replacement and it adheres to viable WP:FU (you can check the rationale at IronMaiden-Hammerstein2005.jpg). I hope this will put to rest peoples worries about what is and isn't fair use when it comes to band photos in infoboxes. Look forward to collaborating with you. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Undergrads

Hey there. Your ideas sounds great to me. I checked out the Roswell pages you linked to. I have to say, they look really really good. If we could get the Undergrads pages looking anywhere close to that, it would be amazing. My idea with the stub articles was to be able to at least have some kind of article up there for each page, just to get the ball rolling. It seems people are more likely to add to pre-existing articles than to create whole new ones. Seeing a bad article on an episode of Undergrads might annoy people just enough to get them to try and contribute. Anyway, I think my contributions to this project may have to wait a few days. I'm currently working on fixing up the episode pages for Clone High, and I really want to get those done before getting too involved in anything else. (If you want to see an example of what I've been doing, I would suggest Episode 3, A.D.D.: The Last 'D' is for Disorder. It's the most complete page so far.) I'm not going to lie, I've actually been borrowing a bit from the format of the Roswell pages you sent me for my Clone High pages. So I don't see any reason to change the format too much for Undergrads. As you said: Infobox, Plot (summary and episode walkthrough), Quotes, Trivia, External Links. Hope to talk to you more soon! --Gpollock 04:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish GA

I still think there's too much uncited text in the article to justify a GA nom, too much original research. I think we're getting closer to that point, but I have to say that I expect the nom to fail. Which is fine; we should get some constructive, unbiased feedback, nonetheless. — Music Maker 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good!

I checked out the Undergrads pilot page you posted in your Sandbox. It looks really good. I'll try and work on making similar pages (or at least the bare-bones versions of them) for some of the other episodes in the coming days. One small comment: Do we need to list the regular cast on each episode page? It seems kind of redundant listing Pete Williams (III), Susan Dalton and Jene Yeo on every page. That information might be better placed once, on the Undergrads main page. Other than that, the page looks great. --Gpollock 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure we should leave the full cast in for this first episode, but each subsequent one can just be a section titled "Guest Stars" (a list of which can be found for each episode at the Undergrads listing at TV.com). I just finished up all I needed for the episode, so I am going to put into the actual article page now. I will be adding screenshots in the next few minutes as well. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:IP user and Iron Maiden pictures

I've done that. Thanks. --Abu Badali 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish and their musical costumes

Thank you for helping me with the Phish musical costume page. This is my first page i've created and i'm sorry if I've made a whole lot of mistakes or anything.

Thanks again!

K.F.A.

why just cuz u dont agree doesnot make it nonsense (Googleyii 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

First, please assume good faith on other editors. Second, the notice was placed first because it was believed to be nonsense, but also because it doesn't seem to fit WP:N and doesn't have the importance of the group from reliable sources. There are no hits on the search engine Google to verify this information. Once such sources are cited, we can move on from there. Cheers! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Travis S Taylor

I'm not entirely certain what to think about your message. I can't determine if you just think I should re-write the article (which I can do) or if you think it's not important enough to have its own page and should just be left to be deleted (which I can also do). So seeing as I'm confused, I'm just going to leave it put for the moment. -- Jaerune 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow-Up: I rewrote the article as best as I could. There's not a lot of information about Dr. Taylor, but as he's working with John Ringo on an upcoming book, I think he at least warrants a small page. -- Jaerune 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Satoshi Kamiya

Please don't re-tag pages as speedy deletions when an editor in good standing (in this case, an admin) has removed the speedy tag. We want the page author to use {{hangon}}, but others certainly can remove speedy tags. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-admins can also remove speedy tags (and in fact should do so when they disagree with speedy deletion). In cases that might be worth debating (i.e. if the tag remover isn't an obvious sockpuppet), it's better to take the issue to WP:AFD than to re-add the speedy tag. Anyway, no harm done with this one. Thank you for helping with new page patrol! Kusma (討論) 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem about the tag, Moeron. Happy editing. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deadheads

Didn't know where to look on the Deadhead page for discussion. Now that you pointed out where that was, will go there to discuss. -- Michael Trigoboff

Copyvios

Re [1] - please be aware that within 48 hrs of posting a copyvio article is liable to be deleted under WP:CSD A8 if certain conditions are met. User {{db-copyvio|url}}. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cosmophysics

The page cosmophysics is necessary for a comprehensive classification of physics. So please dont redirect it now. It will be edited later so that it will look different fron as it appears now. [[[User:Austin Maxwell|Austin Maxwell]] 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)]

Until you make the differences, you should not do so on an actual page. My suggestion it to either use the WP:Sandbox or to create you own, such as User:Austin Maxwell/Sandbox. This why, there will be no confusion why there are two articles with the same content. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish album order

Sounds good! However, it does say "There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography," so maybe a vote would be best. It just seems weird to have "Phish NYE 1995" listed as an album that cones after "Undermind." Cheers - User:Sectornine

live album dates in chronology

I put it in there because I still think it is ridiculously confusing that a live album from 1995 appears to be an album from 2005. You got your way with the order, even though the Wikipedia SPECIFICALLY states that "There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography." Therefore, I still think we need to vote. Outside advice does not mean it has to be one way or the other. We are not AllMusic or Amazon. This is a community based website, and it should be up to the contributors, not just one editor. It would be nice if you could compromise a little bit and let the contributors decide as a whole instead of making every single decision regarding the Phish page, which I've noticed has happened by looking at the history. I will begin the vote on the main Phish discussion page so everyone can chime in. Thanks - User: Sectornine.

Alan Chartok rv

Thanks for the revert on this page. I'd suggest adding warning tags in these cases so people can track repeat vandalism. In case you haven't used them before, you just need to type {{subst:test1}} ~~~~ as an example. The full list is at WP:USETEMP and some policy here [2]. Antonrojo 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I use them a lot, I just got caught in something as soon as I reverted. Thanks! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor league players

I didn't realize that some of the minor league player biographies were reposts. The first few I checked didn't seem to be, so I assumed the rest were fine as well. If you're sure that minor league players don't belong in Wikipedia, then do whatever you think is necessary, but I thought that WP:BIO's line "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" would include the minor league. If you want to keep the articles, then please add relevant categories such as Category:Minor league baseball players, Category:Cleveland Indians, Category:Living people --TruthbringerToronto 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As well, Kyle Collins should probably be treated the same way as the other minor leaguers. Kyle Collins was not a recreation according to the deletion log.

Music article usage conventions

Moeron, just been looking at some of your Dead album article additions. Please note - songs go in quotes, "Truckin'"; albums go in italics, Europe '72; the album name in the first line (only!) of an article goes in bold italics, Skeletons in the Closet. No other names go in bold unless they are alternate names for the title of the article (and thus the subject of a redirect). Keep truckin' on ... Wasted Time R 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Devils & Dust Tour

Always nice to know these articles have readers. Like you said, it isn't finished yet. Wasted Time R 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Grateful Dead discography

BTW, what do you think of my comment at Talk:Grateful Dead discography? You've done a lot of good work on it, yet I still think that the contemporaneous live albums need to be listed intermixed with the studio albums, otherwise the historical sequence is completely lost. Wasted Time R 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)