User talk:Drewcifer3000/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Drewcifer3000. 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models
I have rearranged and each short paragraph on a period in the history of the show now discusses some models. Please revisit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When you have the time, can you look at this? I am a bit uneasy about supporting at the moment. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Discography style guide proposal
I have seen your guidelines for artist's discographies and am trying to propose guidelines for producer's discographies.. I ask of you, your opinion based on Wikipedia's manual of style and guidelines for this sort of thing.
Should this section be called "Full credit production work"? Should EP's be included in this section, considering that this section will at most have about four or five releases. Should release dates, labels, format, chart positions, sales and certification be included? Where should artist names of the release be placed? Where should references that source the producer's full credit in the release be placed?
| Year | Album details | Peak chart positions | Sales | Certifications (sales thresholds) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US [1] |
AUS [2] |
AUT [3] |
FIN [4] |
NLD [5] |
NZ [6] |
NOR [7] |
SWE [8] |
SWI [9] |
UK [10] | ||||
| 1989 | Bleach by Nirvana | 89 | 34 | 26 | 24 | — | 30 | — | — | — | 33 | 1.7 million + (US)[11] | Platinum (US)[12] |
| 1991 | The Eminem Show by Eminem
|
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 million + (US)[13] 26 million + (worldwide)[14] |
Diamond (US)[15] 2× Platinum (UK)[16] |
| "—" denotes releases that did not chart. | |||||||||||||
What do you reccomend for a title of the section and the placing of references? Should singles be included in this section (I believe they should)? Should column widths be changed? What credits should be included; performer, writer, co-writer, producer, co-producer, any others?
| Year | Track(s) | Artist | Album | Credit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | "Sweaty" | Jodeci, Timbaland | Diary of a Mad Band | performer, co-writer, co-producer |
| 1995 | "Bring on Da' Funk" "Time and Place" |
Jodeci | The Show, The After Party, The Hotel | co-writer, producer |
| 2007 | "All Day" | Aesop Rock | All Day: Nike+ Original Run | producer |
| "Keep off the Lawn" "Catacomb Kids" |
None Shall Pass | |||
| "39 Thieves" | Aesop Rock, Timbaland | performer, co-producer | ||
| "Citronella" "Five Fingers" |
Aesop Rock | writer, co-producer | ||
| 2008 | "Give Me Love" | Grayskul, Missy Elliot | Bloody Radio |
I don't know what other sections should be included. Remixes? What do you think of the proposal thus far? Alex Douglas (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps update
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.
If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:Kate DeAraugo discography
There was no sarcasm or bitterness intended, I apologise if you felt that my comment exhibited it. Thankyou for your suggestion, I have merged the list to Kate DeAraugo. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments at the above FLC. Could you comment on the possible 3b issue raised by Crzycheetah (talk · contribs)? I'm not sure whether it would apply, and would appreciate your input on the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you check to see if your concerns from the previous FLC were resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Die & Mold Services
The article Die & Mold Services has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article about an album with a very limited distribution, no sources or references are cited and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for albums (such as significant coverage by 3. parties).
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sherool (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Drewcifer3000. I was referred to you by User:Dabomb87 for your expertise regarding articles on music. I am trying to promote the above wiki-linked article for FA and I have copy-edited and refreshed teh prose as much as I could and to the best of my abilities. however, could you please take a look at the article and point out what prose needs to be perfected? It is already nominated for FA. User:Tony1 said that the prose isn't too bad, however a little improvement is necessary. He didnot elaborate furhter. So I am asking for your help, if you could take outsome time. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have really developed artist discographies to FL. What do you think of this discography. With further development will it have a shot at FL? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wonderful suggestions. I'll have a draft ready and let you know. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Massive Attack discography
Just to let you know, I've made some more comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Massive Attack discography/archive1. I also found a solution to your EveryHit problem. There is a listing at Chart Stats for what you're looking for - see here (it is listed under "Massive" and charted at #13, apparently. Dt128 SpeakToMe 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, I've replaced the ref for "Unfinished Sympathy" with an unimpeachably reliable ref from the Book of British Hit Singles. I hope this helps when you take it back to FLC....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The Beatles discography
I actually started revamping that list at this temp page, then I got tired/fed up and forgot about it until now. I doubt I can find the time or inspiration to be a major part of the revamping, but I'll help what I can. You are welcome to transfer stuff from my temp page as you see fit. Thanks, and good luck!–indopug (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, have your remaining comments here been resolved? Thanks for your recent FLC reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
FAC
Nice to see you around at FAC. It made me wonder when I'm going to see the next NIN article over there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hah! I'd better get my act together. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong
Just to let you know that I have returned to editing Falun Gong articles, after feeling generally battered and tired. I am happy that there are a number of third party editors now involved, and some progress is being made to roll back the ratchet. Articles are being given some tough reworking, cleaning up some of the worstWP:NPOV violations. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip rajeev enforcement case
Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
Thanks for your suggestion. I am going to start reviewing some articles for GA. However I'm extremely disappointed in the way teh FA nomination of 4 Minutes (Madonna song) was failed just because enough reviewers didnot add their comments. I'm not surprised that most editors donot want to nominate articles for this and User:Tony1's snarky remarks. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll wait for a few weeks and re-nominate the article. I raised a concern at User:Majorly's talkpage regarding the snarky remarks in the reviews I have seen. Feel free to comment there if you want to. I'll notify you once its done. In the meantime I'll start working on the article "Hung Up" which I believe, after incorporating your comments for 4 Minutes FAR, can surely be another FA candidate. What do you think? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Drewcifer, "4 Minutes" has been nominated for FA again by me here. Feel free to give your comments there. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did check for WP:LQ and quite a few places it was not consistent. I spruced them up. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Drewcifer, "4 Minutes" has been nominated for FA again by me here. Feel free to give your comments there. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)