User talk:FACT50

License tagging for Image:Discoverycover1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discoverycover1.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. 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Revolutioncover1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Revolutioncover1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vernian Process

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernian Process and WP:CSD for more information on my deletion. As opposed to reposting the article, you might consider a request at deletion review if you'd like to pursue this further. Luna Santin 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is not a good idea to go putting ALLCAPS commentary on a user's page, no matter how injudicious you feel his or her editing choices have been. I removed the Vernian links at the Steampunk article in light of the discussion at AfD. I urge you to take the article to deletion review and have it looked at there. If people feel the article was incorrectly removed, it can be reinstated and the links that you placed restored. However, as you ill observe in the list, the article is primarily linked to examples that are notable enough for their own entry. If that is decided not to be the case here, they should be removed. Eusebeus 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate your frustration, especially since it is obviously something close to your heart. The fact is that there a wide variety of views about what constitutes notability particularly with respect to music/bands. I tend to be on the side of deletion, but there are others who would find my approach too exclusionary. Deletion review is a good venue for you to present your case in the event you feel that AfD was unfair and if a case for notability can be established, then the links at Steampunk have every right to be reestablished. But in the interests if consistency, that should be the first step. I apologise for using the inflammatory word spam - that was unnecessarily inconsiderate. Eusebeus 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply, and I have posted a deletion review. I am trying to remain alot calmer now, and will handle this issue through the proper channels. This was just one of many things that was hampering my various projects this week. So I have been on edge a bit about them. Thanks again --FACT50 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Let me point out that there are likely many ways you can help around here even if your particular article project doesn't end up succeeding (if for the time being only). I think you will find that most editors are willing to listen and, even if they disagree, be genuinely interested in talking through the points you feel should be raised. Glad to have you as part of the project! Best, Eusebeus 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I approved the deletion because there was at least a weak consensus to delete, and the concerns raised in the deletion debate were not answered. Unfortunately, the argument "if article X exists, so should article Y" isn't valid in the majority of cases. Also, Abney Park (band) doesn't mention Vernian Process as an inspiration, and a MySpace blog entry (no matter what is in it) isn't considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Without multiple sources verifying the band's notability, it doesn't meet the music notability guidelines. You can challenge the deletion at deletion review, if you wish. --Core des at 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I feel super dorky doing this, but memnbers from Abney Park have mentioned Vernian Process being an inspiration to their project. Posted by Robert the founder of Abney Park. I don't understand how their blogs are less reliable than media however? --FACT50 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't considered reliable sources because they're not third-party sources independent of the subject itself (there's a section on them in WP:RS). We normally only use blogs if they're by a well-known researcher in their given field, and even then only very rarely. --Core des at 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can say that Abney Park never mentioned VP as an influence, when there is a valid post from the creator of the band right in front of you. Think about the context you are looking at this with. What you are basically asking (no telling) me to do is to ask Robert politely if he can add a reference on his wikipedia article mentioning my project? That is beyond ridiculous. How is anything on wikipedia more valid than anything on LJ or MySpace? Please answer this for me? --FACT50 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, one sentence in a LiveJournal entry doesn't cut it for WP:RS. It would need to be an interview published in an article, or on the band's website (although this wouldn't really be a third-party source). --Core des at 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed that you have a deletion review going on this article already, let's let that proceed, since it just started. The other sources you presented might make a case for WP:MUSIC. --Core des at 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-punk

Actually, if you can, you might want to focus on post-punk revival first, which is really sparse right now. That's a page where more certainly needs to be written. WesleyDodds 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1. One of the hard things I've found it hard trying to figure out is the boundaries between the end of post-punk and and the development of alternative rock, especially since many post-punk bands (The Cure, New Order, the Banshees) outlived the post-punk era and/or changed their styles, placing them under the alternative genre. It's hard to often do this since little has been written on the subject. However, with what has been written on it there are some clear points of reference we can rely on. R.E.M., the Smiths, Husker Du, the Replacements, and the Jesus and Mary Chain are bands that are generally considered to have helped founded alternative rock, creating a movement that developed out of and succeeded post-punk and hardcore punk. While it's impossible to distinctly say "this is the first alternative band" at some point alternative replaces post-punk as the dominant force on the indie scene in the 1980s. So pretty much any underground band that emerged after, say, the mid-80s is classified as alternative rock and probably doesn't need to be covered by the post-punk article or related pages. Usually it's easier to determine this if a band belongs to a clearly definable alternative subgenre (then again, gothic rock started out with a bunch of post-punk bands but is pretty much universally considered an alt-rock subgenre; oh well).

2. If the link you put on the post-punk page is a site you yourself own, I'm afraid it doesn't belong per Wikipedia:External links. If someone else thinks it's an appropriate external resource and decides to add it back, that's fine, but you yourself can't add it. You certainly meant no harm, but it's standard policy in order to cut down on spam that tends to plague External Links sections. WesleyDodds 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand with the Stone Roses. Even though I'm a huge fan, I've only heard "So Young" once, a song they quickly disowned and then went to straight-on "indie" with their second single "Sally Cinnamon". I like the idea of the list, but let's not try to add too many artists to it, since a lot would fit fine under alternative anyway and it might edge towards original research if we're not careful. But I think it works best for for the likes of Felt, Big Black (Steve Albini loves his early PIL and Sisters of Mercy), the early phases of certain shoegaze bands like MBV, and so forth. Maybe Sonic Youth and Jane's Addiction could be added; SY drew from No Wave but formed after the movement burned out, and Dave Navarro's biggest influences are Bauhaus and the Banshess, to the point where he's said he's always considered his band to be a "masculine version of the Banshees". Conversely, the Smiths don't belong; they're widely viewed, especially in England, as the first "indie" band (the British term for alternative rock) and were viewed to be a rejection of the post-punk and New Wave aethestics. In many ways, they're the British R.E.M. (in fact, I've got an R.E.M. bio on hand that talks about the constant comparisons that were made between the two when they first started). I read a reprint of an article on them by Jon Savage from about the time of release of "This Charming Man" that focused on how much of a fresh sound they were at the time. And yes, Morrissey bitches a lot, but he's been pretty vocal about his disdain for Joy Division and the Cure. WesleyDodds 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Cool name. Wish I'd tough of it; (humph) - Coil00 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Forgottenage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Forgottenage.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vp-promopic copy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vp-promopic copy.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Catalystsep1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catalystsep1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beholdthemachine.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beholdthemachine.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vplogo1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vplogo1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernian Process

I thought I'd drop a note in about getting the entry back up and running. I think it is on the cusp of surviving a deletion review but we'd want to make sure it made it so some thoughts:

Start it in your sandbox
We can help edit it up until it is looking solid.
We can find WP:RS to back up WP:N and WP:V. For example I have checked on other projects and a blanket "no blogs" doesn't work under the guidelines: WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources. If we can be sure that the blog comments are by the people who they say they are (which we can be as they are here) then things like them saying who their inspiration is on a blog is as good as an interview - see comments here. So Abney Park saying you inspired them can be sourced legitimately.
We invite people who voted to delete the entry to provide feedback on the entry in the Sandbox. If you can get a consensus approving it before it is moved to the main entry it should sial through a deletion review this time.

Granted it might take a bit longer but I do think it is worthwhile and going this route should mean that it sticks this time - third time lucky ;) I'm going to be away from the computer for a while but you don't really need my input/feedback for a bit anyway if you want to get things rolling. (Emperor 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK cool. I doubt one thing will swing it but that should generate extra interest/press and if we can get a number of thing with with good references everything should go swimmingly. Let me know when you start sandboxing and I'll keep an eye on things and see input I can give ;) (Emperor 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shaping up nicely. Influences are OK as long as you can source them. Ditto future projects. Simplest way is for you to list them on your website and then use that as a reference.

Other things to add: Abeny Park saying you are an influence (as I say above you can source it from their blog). Also add these interviews: [1] [2], this review: [3], these podcasts: [4] [5] and this event: [6].

If you have any other press that'd be handy. If it is in print form then scan it in an throw it online somewhere (I know a few people who do this and it works well for backing up claims).

We really need to hulk up the WP:N - I think the Abney Park reference will help as will the various events. Also mentions in print (reviews, features, interviews) is vital and the Girls and Corpses interview in issue #10 is a really important one - some more like that and you should be set. (Emperor 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I took a spin through it. Switched references over to footnotes. That sort of thing. You are right, perhaps leave the podcasts out of it for now to keep things tight and focused. Information to add: The name of the Nouvelle Vague track you remixed (and a source for it). Other than that anymore press or events or significant information (those remixes are good) will help. (Emperor 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Apparently you can't link to MySpace blog entries as they are in the spam list. Not really a big deal I suppose - just drop in the name of the song and it should be checkable (wherever it was published). I assume most of the bases are covered now (your tracks haven't been used in compilations or films or games? If so get them mentioned) so the next step would be speaking to some of the people who dropped in comments on the previious deletion review. Eusebeus, in particular, appeared to be open to offering feedback for future attempts so drop a few people notes pointing them to the sandbox version and see if they have ideas and input that could help tighten things up some more. I'm happy with the way it has shaped up and the variety of sources presented but the important thing is to make sure it satisfies a number of editors. Also drop a note into the Steampunk entry talk page to see if the editors over there have any thoughts on the matter. (Emperor 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Those two projects would be excellent extra information but things are looking OK as it is. The important thing is to get some extra eyes looking over it. One thing I wanted to check - you give a transcript of an interview with Mick Mercer from The Mick #31 but I did a quick search of the PDF and couldn't find anything. If you can nail that one down (page numbers?) then that'd be really useful as he is an authority in the area so is a good one to have. (Emperor 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK great thanks for clarifying that. Looking good. (Emperor 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I do think that the information on the soundtrack work is important but it'll need better sourcing. There are exceptions to the "no blog" guideline but sourcing things from discussion forums is difficult. It may be that it might be an exception that is allowable but I could see people raising legitimate reservations about it. Its a start but would need nailing down a bit more. Production blogs or sites would be handy or you could add something in on the site (which could then link through to the message board). Something like that. (Emperor 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bottom line is that discussion forums are not considered reliable sources as most people can never be sure people are who they say they are. There are exceptions but I doubt it includes this. It might work to back up other more solid claims and flesh things out but I don't think most people would find it acceptable as the only source. It is worth giving it a shot but to really nail it down properly you'd want sources from the production side of thing. (Emperor 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Again you'd have to prove it. It shouldn't be difficult - just stick a statement up somewhere official that you can link to (if there isn't already one around). The whole thing reminds me of the recent pixel-stained technopeasant debacle that has broken out [7] [8] - basically the important thing for notability is for there to be good secondary sources demonstarting that and the appearances in magazines, at events and the like does help cover the WP:N angle. Obviously the music project has other more detailed criteria and I'm sure having a record deal helps but that can't be the be all and end all and doesn rather miss the advatanges of electronic distribution (o course a deal does help avoid the problem of "vanity publishing"). So I think it'd be worth including if you can source it - the important thing is to make sure the notability base is covered as well as possible and I do think it is looking good on that front (adding the game and film details when you can would also be good). (Emperor 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have read your new article and it certainly looks better. However, I still think this fails WP:MUSIC and I would frankly vote to delete it if it were brought to AfD, although other editors might well disagree and my opinion is of course mine and mine alone. At a minimum, do not link to nouns like Catalyst when you are referring to something else. In this case you should link to Catalyst (Album) etc... Also, avoid redlinks in the main paragraph (Joshua) to figures who don't merit their own entry under the terms laid out in WP:BIO. The article reads well, and is well redacted, but I am still unconvinced as to the notability of the group, although I salute your efforts. cheers! Eusebeus 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that there are good claims under the following criteria (of which the entry only has to satisfy one):

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style.

And under "Others":

For composers and performers outside mass media traditions:

1. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.

5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

With the first 1 and 5 being demonstrated in the entry with a number of references to magazines. As I've mentioned the coverage by Mick Mercer stikes me as especially relevant as he has been the expert on the various Goth sub-cultures as long as there has been such a thing. Just my opinion though - if you have any ideas on areas you think that could be addressed then throw them in. (Emperor 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your reply and the points Emperor raises above here. I think this touches on a grey area pertinent to notability established under many WP guidelines. Things like non-trivial, reliable, and influential are all rather ambiguous. Point #5 in the guideline is also tricky in this regard. What I find trivial may be important to someone else and vice-versa. I almost always tend to put the bar high on issues of notability, non-triviality, etc... by which measure I remain unconvinced that this passes WP:MUSIC. Otoh, there's no harm in putting the article back up and seeing how others feel. I think producing a well-written, well-sourced, neutral article such as this one that seeks simply to inform is more than half the battle, since many editors are loathe to delete something that has been redacted in good faith. Whatever the case, I salute your efforts, welcome your participation and thank you for the solicitation of my opinion, which has been a very fair minded demonstration of good faith. Eusebeus 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't usually work within the Music Project's area in any detail so the extra perspectie is very handy. I largely approach Steampunk from the books, films, etc. but it has exposed me to the sub-culture side and Vernian Process influence as one of the first people to produce explicitly Steampunk music is much discussed and I felt it was worth trying to see if it wasn't possible to try and get the entry accepted (I've chased up a few entries that have nearly made it to see if we can't tip them over itno being accepted). However, proving this is tricky hence my suggestion of building the entry up in a sandbox first and see how it looks. (Emperor 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Vernian Process redux

I think it is pretty solid after the work we have done above and I assume there are more sources that can be (or have been) added. So I think it is worth seeing what happens (as Eusebeus suggested in his last comment). Clearly if there is anything to add then do so and we'll take it from there. (Emperor (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Vp-discovery2.jpg

The file File:Vp-discovery2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]