Jump to content

User talk:3family6/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

DYK for Steve Taylor & The Perfect Foil

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Wow to the Deadness

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Back to Dust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Soup the Chemist

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Inauguration of Mauricio Macri

Would it be OK if I asked to be co-credited for the DYK with @Cambalachero:? I did a lot of the copyediting and retranslation, source work and writing to neutralize the article and rescue it from potentially failing as a DYK, and I'd like to be credited with that. (I've also pinged him to get his opinion.) If you don't want to, that's fine as well. Raymie (t • c) 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and credited you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sintax the Terrific

Hello! Your submission of Sintax the Terrific at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Sayasila

Hello,

Could you please return to this nomination and remove those untidy red marks littering the template? I do believe they are hindering the nomination from running as a DYK.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The nomination was promoted to a prep set, so it should be fine.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Seisan Bunkai

Just a courtesy note that I get your point. Some groups of Uechi practice it against a bo. The interpretation is now a tradition that is testable. There are other interpretations as there are for all of the movements in the kata but you have to have a standard if you are testing application. If you look in Mattson's second book, you will find an interpretation for the double-groin/crane strikes that he now mutters about--catching kicks from the front and the back! It was the best he could come up with at the time when put on the spot! So . . . if I think the final move against a "sword" is a bit unrealistic, I do not want to dwell on what absurd interpretation I would have imagined if I was put on "the spot." >.<98.227.140.14 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never read any of Mattson's books, and am not very inclined to as one of my senseis has made comments to the effect that Mattson really didn't, and doesn't, know what he is talking about. I'm just not sure that the idea of a seisan bunkai defending against a sword strike was entirely his - I don't think the OkiKuKai has ever had anything to do with Mattson, yet it has adopted that defense technique. I'm sure others use a bo. I just am unsure about the origins of both. Maybe if Sensei Shigeru Takamiyagi ever finished his book we could know a lot more of the direct history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here we get into the stupidity of politics which, frankly, is nothing more than people upset over who got the softer cushion at the bar one day in 1972! I use to hear that "George Mattson never trains" yet every time I see him he has a gi on and is, well, training.

That being written OKK--"Okikukai"--was basically everyone but Kanmei Uechi. Mattson had a relationship with them up until Kanei died. He stayed with Kanmei because he did not see eye-to-eye with a particular member of OKK to which I will only say that individual caused a lot of others to leave as well, such as Jim Thompson, Kiyohide Shinjo. My point on that is "politics" tends to be two-way street.

Whether or not you believe Mattson's version of the development of Seisan bunkai it became the "standard" WAY back though some organizations used a bo. Originally, separate students of Kanbun had their own organizations that were happy to be under Kanei. They would have tests together under Kanei. This changed after he died with some going independent. There were also other interpretations of moves you see in the different organizations' versions.

The general attitude, on Okinawa, is keep a sequence that is only for testing the same because why change it? THAT being written a lot of organizations are going back to an "older" way of doing San Sei Rui because, well, they sort of forgot how it was done because when it was taught it was broken down. Years ago, I recall seeing a picture of a now 10th dan doing the final move "weird" and was told, "that's the old way." A few years later, they are doing "the old way." Gofigya! To which there is an amusing story Tomoyose Sensei told at Mattson's camp when some schmuck asked him, "when Kanbun Uechi demonstrated a kata, did he do it differently every time?"

"Of course!" he answered. He then told about how he met with his father and his father demanded they train. As Tomoyose Sensei was doing what he was doing his father got angrier and angrier. "THAT'S NOT RIGHT!" Tomoyose Sensei explained to his father that that was what Kanei Uechi was teaching him. Apparently, his father stormed back to Japan to Kanbun Uechi and ranted about how "his son" was teaching everyone wrong."

"What is he teaching," Kanbun asked.

Tomoyose Sensei's father showed him.

"Oh yeah, that's right! I forgot! Sorry."

Unfortunately, Mr. Takamiyagi did finish his book twice. He primarily wrote the "Kihon" then he put together a sort of second book. The problem is both are only available in Japanese and were limited printing. They also have a lot of extraneous material from a "lot of important people no one outside of Okinawa knows" in deference to them. I had privately suggested that he take his second book with the section on Sanchin and San Sei Rui, add a similar section on Seisan, and keep the hojoundo section. His "history" tended to be a bit of hagiography. Anyways, take that and then force a few of his graduate students to translate it into English. THAT, I tried to explain, every Uechi student would buy. Whether they agreed with it or not. Sadly, he never did that and, equally sadly, he never will be able to. Perhaps his students may consider doing that.98.227.140.14 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand what you are saying about the politics of things. I've tried to follow some of it and I always end up getting lost. Anyway, I think it would be great if we could demonstrate the bo version of the bunkai with some reliable sources. The entire articles on Uechi-Ryu and Shohei-Ryu need better sourcing, anyway.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The only "good thing" about knowing politics is knowing that a lot of declarations come less from history and reality and more from "Hate THAT guy!"

Unfortunately, much of this is "I heard/I saw" which, as I say, with $2 will get you a very bad cup of coffee at Starbucks. The Shinkokai group practiced that way. It is hard to describe in writing but you have to imagine a standard bo attack which is a thrust, then a swing to the feet, then a strike downward. So they block down with the left prior to jumping back to deflect the thrust. If you look on Youtube I believe they have Gushi's instructional videos where he has his interpretation of the front-kick-knee strike sequence. That is not his personal interpretation, it is one practiced by many and has been for a long time, it is just not part of the "official" version of the bunkai. But it is all a bit fluid in that even the older dudes like Nakahodo and Takara talk about these things and tweak here and there. From a "Wiki" stand-point, all one can really say is that kata has many different interpretations but the bunkai are simply agreed on interpretations for instructional and teaching purposes.

You really want to get depressed? Research some of the actual history. That picture of "Shushiwa," for example, is all wrong. Completely wrong. As one guy who was there during the trip puts it, the Chinese did not want to disappoint the visitors by not finding anything on the figure so they basically grabbed a picture and said, "here!" There is also a too long but funny story Tomoyose Sensei tells about why Kanbun REALLY started teaching again!

Awesome . . . but how do you source any of that? We will all go back to Kanbun leaping up from his deathbed--from renal failure!--to execute the perfect Sanchin stance! :) Or as a professor who teaches Aikido jokingly put it, "oh yeah, but Ueshiba DID teleport!"98.227.140.14 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Nephilim: Act of God 1

—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Mongol conquests

Hi 3family6

This was a misunderstanding, for which I am to blame, so allow me to start by conveying my sicere apologies. This is how it evolved:

  • 1. I was not questioning the source, I was asking about the author, about who he is/ was and this I thought I made clear in the edit summary: "who is he?". I was looking for something like "British mediaeval historian"/ "American historian specialsing in ....".
  • 2. I see now — after you insited that I was using the wrong tag — that I have from time to time used this template incorrectly, often using it as a request for information on who the person in question is (but I am relieved to be able to say that I also use it correctly in cases of "experts say ..." and similar).
  • 3. This obviously created the misunderstanding, as is clear from your edit summary, "not an appropriate usage for that template, since this is a direct quote attributed to a specific historian", which I failed — then — to understand. I get it now.

All I wanted to know, as a first step, was who the person is/ was. This, for two reasons:

  • 1. The person might be unrelated to the subject and could have made a single and tangential reference to the Mongols (after all, the work is called " Empires Apart: A History of American and Russian Imperialism" - nothing about Mongols there). I have seen many similar cases, where editors are desperate for sources and will use — as an example — something taken from the intro of a popular, commercial, cookery book as 'source' to back up a statement about the spread of sourdough throughout the ancient world.
  • 2. Because we tend to be more lenient with historical personalities and allow them more latitude and do not hold them up to the same academic rigour as we do with modern writers — we would accept of a mediaeval historian (chronicler) such as Thomas Grey to use language such as "an orgy of violence and destruction", but not of a modern writer. We attribute to Cassius Dio and others information such as "Nero was rumored to have had captured Christians dipped in oil and set on fire in his garden at night as a source of light", and this coming from a man who lived 150 after Nero's death.

So, if I knew who the author was, I would have immediately deleted the passage if he fell in category 1. (as you have correctly done, but would need to know more about his standing in the field if he fell in category 2. before taking further action. So yes, despite by best efforts and good intention, my template would not bear any fruit because I was indeed using it wrongly. Then, because of your reversals, I looked up the work and saw that it was most certainly a case of category 1. I could then have proceeded with removing the section, but I don't know why I did not — perhaps the conviction that I was right and you were wrong — which I now see was the opposite —, which also accounts for my tone, for which I equally apologise. Again, I am to blame for the misunderstanding and duly express my apologies. Question — is there an appropriate template to indicate that nothing or little is known about the author (i.e., where the information being attributed is quite plausible and is well argumented, but there is no information available on the author and his standing in the field? Perhaps, [unreliable source?], accompanied by "Nothing is known about this author" in the edit summary? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I should apologize too - it was late in the night and I was tired and thus easily annoyed over something fairly minor. I could have reacted better. I understand fully what you are saying about the source. I think [unreliable source?] or [better source needed] would both work here. Both of those templates also have a navbox on the bottom of their respective pages, which is how I was able to find all the alternative.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Slow Burn (album)

Hello 3family6, I just reviewed your article nomination for DYK (Slow Burn (album)) and wanted to let you know that I confirmed the nomination (a very well done article), but had a minor quibble with wording for the hook, if you want to weigh in on my suggestion. — AJDS talk 17:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ill Harmonics

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sev Statik; Altered State; Speak Life

Hello! Your submission of Sev Statik; Altered State; Speak Life at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jolly Ω Janner 08:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sean Slaughter

I just found and watch this interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, while I don't know the best way to integrate the material in the Sean Slaughter article. This is one you may want to take to DYK, where this would get increased exposure of his music.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Slow Burn (album)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Operation Momentum
added a link pointing to Desmond Fitzgerald
Project Copper
added a link pointing to Irregular

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

3family6, I appreciate the kind words!  :) I'm very glad I didn't cause offense, and I regret having initially badly communicated what I was trying to get at. (Answering you here because I didn't feel it was quite polite of me to answer on the talk page of someone with whom I was having a dispute.) valereee (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Civility Barnstar
for assuming good faith in a situation where it would have been easy to do the opposite! valereee (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For all the good work that you do! Caden cool 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

L'Armée Clandestine

Hello,

Just thought you might be interested that I am researching the possibility of tracing the Project Momentum guerrillas' evolution into Vang Pao's L'Armée Clandestine. It is quite a tale. Long tale short, the Hmong developed into history's first guerrilla army with air superiority. L'Armée became the fighting core of the Royalist troops in northern Laos. They stalemated the People's Army of Vietnam for years while inflicting several times the casualties they suffered. But there were just way too few Hmong, and from about 1971 on L'Armée Clandestine was predominantly Thai mercenaries. The remaining Hmong units were filled with teenagers and aging cripples.

Gripping story, with epic battles ranging over the Plain of Jars. But oi, the research....

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds exciting!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Back to Dust

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sintax the Terrific

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your efforts cleanup up links to New Release Tuesday following that article's deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I finally figured out how to use AWB is all. Only about 650 to go!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaga ikki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yamashina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Sev Statik

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Altered State (Stu Dent album)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Speak Life

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for Kaga ikki

WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
As a thank you for the fascinating article at Kaga ikki! —Nizolan (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

Image What to type Country
The Laos Barnstar
 The Laos Barnstar of National Merit is awarded to you for the creation of the Campaign Information Box with which you enriched articles about the Laotian Civil War.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Laos BarnstarLaos
Thanks, Georgejdorner, it is very fun reading those articles!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Then you might enjoy Battles of Nakhang, hot off the keyboard.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lecrae Article

Hi 3family6,

I think that it is more appropriate to refer to Lecrae by his first name in his article rather than refer to him as Moore. I recognize that Wikipedia tries to use the last name of the subject. However, in instances in which an artist only goes by his or her first name, I am of the opinion that using the first name reduces incongruity. For example, Beyoncé and Adele are addressed by their first name as opposed to their last name on their Wikipedia articles.

Thank you Caleb Casolaro (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Caleb Casolaro: Both of those articles violate the Manual of Style. In the case of Beyoncé I'm rather surprised, since that article is a good article and thus should comply with the manual of style. The guideline in question is MOS:SURNAME. Until you can provide a very good reason that we should ignore the rules and establish a different consensus for performing musicians, the article should follow MOS guidelines. You should bring this up on the relevant MOS talk page if you want to establish a different consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Caleb Casolaro I stand corrected. The guideline I cited above states that if someone is best known by a pseudonym, that pseudonym can be used.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bloodbath of B-R5RB

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bloodbath of B-R5RB you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campaign Toan Thang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air America. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bloodbath of B-R5RB

The article Bloodbath of B-R5RB you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bloodbath of B-R5RB for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bloodbath of B-R5RB

The article Bloodbath of B-R5RB you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bloodbath of B-R5RB for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were a contributor to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Could you please take a look at Contemporary worship and Contemporary worship music. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice

How to switch between editing environments
Part of the toolbar in the visual editor
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Part of the toolbar in the wikitext editor
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi 3family6, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

PR request

Hi 3family6, is it possible you could take a look at Gothic metal for its peer review? I'd like to make this a featured article, but I only have a few edits on it. In return, I'll take a look at Viking metal and see if I can help with that. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi there. I've proposed an AfD for Red and Anarchist black metal. It's not getting much comment at present... could you cast an eye over it and offer comment (either way). Trying to gain consensus - either way. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Untombed

Could I get some clarification of how this webzine passes WP:RS? Having an "editorial staff" is nowhere near enough. Has the content been published by independent, third-party sources (print, preferably)? If the specific author of the review has been published elsewhere that could be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but in general webzines fail WP:RS as WP:SPS (editorial staff are self-publishing online most of the time). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Untombed is owned by XNilo Records (and was formerly owned by Divine Metal Distro), though I don't know how much that company is involved in day-to-day operations. David Michael and Janette Ralston are listed as the owners in the About Us section, so they would probably be the actual publishers. The publication has been mentioned elsewhere, such as Metal Pulse Radio - run by Open Grave Records - and I think Indie Vision Music as well (unfortunately, the site is now archived, so it makes it very difficult to find the mentions of Untombed Zine on that site). Your argument about editorial staff self-publishing I've brought up in various discussions here on wiki before, and in general I've seen the response be that if the staff do the publishing, the content is not self-published (even if a given editor wrote the content, it's nothing different than say if a newspaper editor wrote content). Usually the what is discussed is the reputation of the publication's reliability. Untombed Zine is very much a niche publication, but it does have a reputation as a reliable source. And, as I mentioned at the first, it is owned by a media company distinct from the publication itself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Labels/distros have always been disregarded as failing WP:RS. Reputation for "reliability" has nothing to with WP:RS, as a webzine having an editorial staff is not the same as having independent publication for a genuine third-party. Can I just say, thank you for responding with sources, as I came to you as someone whose editing practice I respect (even when we disagree). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I appreciate the debate, as it makes me double-check my work and contributions. Your interpretation of reliability does seem to be different that what I've seen defined in my discussions at WP:RSN and WT:ALBUM, though, which I think explains some of our differences.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3family6/Archive_14&oldid=1136401753"