User talk:J.wong.wiki

Welcome!

Hello, J.wong.wiki and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2011

Ok, I'm registering as a user to add links to album pages (and song pages) to the original source material (streamed). These are legitimate external links since each links to the source material (media in this case) for each relevant article.

Yes, these pages are hosted by MySpace, which many assume to be evil by definition. But nothing is fixed on the Internet. Having lost the battle to Facebook, MySpace is now hosting licensed streamed copies of music from artists to attract more eyeballs and users. Pages whose editorial oversight is controlled by the artist in question (or their deputized representative). So should we take advantage of that? Yup, I say.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Spam / advertising-only account. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

J.wong.wiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per discussion on your talk page User talk:Fastily, please unblock me. I did not post spam. I will discuss with the Bot administrator about making it more discriminating, and will not post any more links until that is resolved. Thank you.J. Wong (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am not 100% happy about the links you have added, but I don't see them as spam, and I don't think they justify an indefinite block. Also, the blocking admin has agreed to an unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly poor block in my view, (the length is rather excessive) I'm inclined to unblock, as long as J.wong.wiki agrees to engage in discussion, perhaps at WT:ALBUM as to whether these links should be included. Courcelles 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something I need to do to complete my unblock request? J. Wong (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't unblock you (I'm not an administrator), but it may help them make the decision to unblock you if you'll go ahead and commit to, if you're unblocked, discussing the myspace links at WT:ALBUM and getting some consensus from that project before you go on and start adding links again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support User:Fluffernutter. I am planning on starting two discussions. One, in WT:ALBUM about adding the links, and another somewhere else (suggestions?) about linking to those MySpace music pages (there seems to be a blanket exclusion of MySpace). But of course, I cannot do any of that until I'm unblocked, which everyone seems to agree is the right thing to do. Could you remind User:Fastily or User:Courcelles about unblocking me? Thx -- J. Wong (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Note that your last edit to this article duplicated the whole of the Linking to Source Material section, which I have now reverted. Please be more careful in future. memphisto 11:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I noticed that myself, but you got to it before me. -- J. Wong (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace links to streams

I looked around a bit and don't see where there was consensus to add these links. Am I missing something? --CutOffTies (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I guess I'm taking no consensus to not add these links as consensus to do so, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm assuming you saw the discussions on WT:ALBUMS and WT:EL? There were issues raised, but I thought they had all been addressed. -- J. Wong (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the discussions I saw. On the albums page, there appears to be no consensus and on the EL page the one response clearly says it should be avoided. Which begs the question as to why you are taking it upon yourself to add the links to a bunch of articles. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll stop until there is consensus, but it's unclear to me when I can tell that. On the Albums discussion, there were some objections raised, but I thought they had all been addressed besides the redirect to the EL discussion. And there, the reference was to ELNO#7, which doesn't say that it should be avoided only "normally" avoided. That is, a site does not have to be available to all users to be linked, but obviously if a site was not available to a majority of users, then it probably should be avoided. -- J. Wong (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You should also remove the ones you added until there is consensus. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re-reading the discussions, it appears that there is consensus for adding links to streamable copies of the albums or songs even on social networking sites except for the issue as to whether the threshold for availability of the links is sufficient to include them. That is a discussion for [WT:ALBUMS], which I'll add. I won't add any more links, but I also won't revert my changes unless the consensus is negative (since its still a managable handful). -- J. Wong (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Marquee Moon edits

Hello, I would like to discuss some of your recent edits to the Marquee Moon page on its talk page. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christgau review

I'm not sure what you mean. That quote is cited (15); I added it because Christgau's grading are at a higher standard (like his "B" grade would be a bad record), so it seems constructive to add the quote from his grading key. Dan56 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd add it since the section pretty short on prose and there aren't a lot of albums rated A+ by Christgau. Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a enough other reviews directly related to the album to expand the prose using quotes without resorting to quoting Christgau's general rating guidelines. I have seen other editors make note of the A+ Christgau rating, e.g., "as one of the few A+ rated albums" (not a real quote, but you get the gist). Maybe that would be enough?

-- J. Wong (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's enough prose from their criticism, I usually exclude most mentions of the grade the critics gave, especially if the grade is already in the ratings template. I suppose an A+ grade is an A+ grade by any critic and doesn't need extra clarification, so the Christgau quote isn't necessary if the prose is expanded. Dan56 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wild Flag (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normalized (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Utero

Hi there, I reverted your edits for the citations on In Utero (album). The reason is that per Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR, there is an already-established citation format for the article. Remember to watch out for previously established citation styles in articles in the future, as it can unknowingly cause problems for other editors if you change them. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I thought the full citation form was preferred since it allows better instrumentation of the articles.

P.S. I've restored the additional info' I had added such as issue and page numbers that your reversion removed. -- J. Wong (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikilinks in the refs are debatable, but issue numbers aren't required--date is how most publications are identified, and not including them is a perfectly valid means of citation, which has been long-used in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes because you reverted valid edits. If you want to remove the issue numbers, fine, but some of my changes are valid such as replacing a dead link with its archive, adding links to a posted copy of a review, etc. Also, page numbers are relevant as well. And, some of the author wikilinks are not otherwise mentioned in the article so keeping them seems relevant. Thank you for not removing these changes. -- J. Wong (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the established citation style of the article does not follow the format you changed it to (which I explained from the get-go), the tracklist template is unnecssary and not mandatory, and some links were added by another user that weren't valid sources (one was even a broken link). This article is a featured article, and has already been vetted for quality, so most of your changes are profoundly unneeded and unrequired. It's strongly frowned upon to change the citation style in articles, especially Featured ones, and there are some instances where you changed to web cites when I had in fact cited the original publication from hard copies I possess. Once again, read Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the format. When you pointed out that the article wasn't using citation templates, I reapplied my changes textually, which included valid changes that were independent of format. Simply reverting all of that is not called for. -- J. Wong (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the use or non-use of templates--it's how the citations are laid out that also needs to be preserved. Among the issues you have introduced are adding page numbers for articles cited from online sources, adding online links to articles cited from hard copies, and adding page numbers for magazines when they aren't required and adding them in an inconsistent manner from how page numbers are cited in the article's refs. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the last of these that I think you can really have a complaint with, and to which I will accept responsibility. It seems entirely reasonable to add publication information even if the original citation was made from an online copy, and similarly, it seems entirely reasonable to add a link to a legal online copy even if the original citation was made with the publication as source. And adding page numbers seems useful for other editors when they want to review the citations. As to the formatting of the page numbers, please point me at the source where I can learn for myself. Thanks.

-- J. Wong (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers aren't required; for magazine articles, article title is sufficient. I know, having been dealt with several Featured Article Candidates, Good Article Nominees, Peer Reviews, and Featured Article Reviews. You say "adding page numbers seems useful for other editors", but that ignores the fact that the established citation form for the article didn't use page numbers for magazine articles, and you have only added page numbers for a few cites. Once again, Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR explains why tweaking citation formatting in an article where everything is already settled is a bad idea, and why it states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change". I'm not saying formatting cites the way you did is not a valid way to format cites on Wikipedia; what I have been trying to explain to you is that it's inconsistent and unnecessary to do it for this particular page per the guideline, and ignores the work of past editors who have worked on the page before you, regardless of what your editing preferences for cites are. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool down everyone - I see that J.wong has added some bluelinks that are worthwhile (remember though they only need linking on the first instance), we don't want see-sawing, but careful cutting and pasting of best bits :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all I want "careful cutting and pasting". Simply reverting all my changes is not acceptable. I spent time putting them in, and now I have to spend time doing it all over again because of laziness or I don't know what on the part of some editors. -- J. Wong (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness wasn't my motivation, it was retaining the establish citation style per Wikipedia:CITEVAR#WP:CITEVAR. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Does it really matter whether a citation was made originally from an online source versus an offline source in a publication?" Yes. You need to indicate where you got the sourced material from. This is essential in regards to sourcing on Wikipedia. I understand if you haven't picked this up before, as it is most commonly stressed and explained in Featured Article Candidates pages. The way you can tell if an online or a print version was cited is simple: there will be a URL with an access date or not. "Making online cites for a publication such as Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone is somewhat misleading" is not misleading if you are indicating that you are citing the website, which is common practice in the better-written articles already. You say "So I think it should be reasonable and acceptable practice to add more information about the sources such as adding page numbers or links to (legal) copies of the source online whether originally accessed online or offline.", but this is not about accessibility, it's about verifiability, which assume far greater importance. There are instances in this article where the original magazine version was cited, and instances where a reprint legally published online was cited. It was essential for the In Utero article to become a Featured Article to indicate this. The citations have already been heavily vetted; though very well-intentioned, your edits throw an unnecessary wrench into the article's structure and past efforts of other editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic review, Filles album

I restored the date "November 1, 2001" to the Allmusic review citation. When I cited Allmusic reviews in the past, I checked with the Amazon.com's previews of All Music Guide books, from where most of Allmusic.com's reviews are adapted. In this case, the review of Filles de Kilimangaro was published in All Music Guide to Popular Music (November 1, 2001). Dan56 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but maybe this should be turned into a book cite then so it is clear since the review on the web-site doesn't have a date. -- J. Wong (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald "Duck" Dunn

I noticed that you added {{refimprove}} on the Donald "Duck" Dunn article back in September. Could you please discuss on Talk:Donald "Duck" Dunn#Additional citations what specifically you think needs to be cited, or add {{citation needed}} tags in the appropriate place in the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comment

Hi. Since you are a member of WP:ALBUMS, would you like to comment at my FAC page? I've been advised before that soliciting comments speeds things up a bit with the backlogged nominations there. Dan56 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]