User talk:Michig/Archive8

Orphaned non-free image (File:FullExperience.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FullExperience.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I orphaned it. Doesn't mean it isn't orphaned. A single album cover is generally considered acceptable on an article about the album as a means of identification, but that album is about the artist, and so it can hardly be argued to be there to identify the subject of the article. For a cover to be significant enough to warrant use on an article about the artist, the cover itself must the be the subject of non-trivial sourced commentary. Compare- we don't have album covers on discographies. Why do you believe this article should be an exception? J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The item displayed is the sleeve art... I don't quite see where you're going with that. There is no commentary of the image or of what it displays (the cover art). I would have no objection to the image being used in an article about the album, as I have already said. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Menswe@r

You've told me not to edit the wiki entry on Menswe@r (band), however 1. I was in the band, so I think I'm more qualified to write or edit entries than you are. 2. If you're doing such a great job, how comes the names of the band members names at the bottom of the page are incorrect and inconsistent with the names at the top of the page. 3. I don't care if you delete me, I have a life.

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazarus1971 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed the policy that states that editors claiming to be the subject of an article are allowed to vandalize it with impunity.--Michig (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hip hop and dub

You say hip hop didn't derive from dub, but both the DJ and rapping elements of hip hop derived in part from it [1] [2] [3] [4] Matthew Fennell (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at above user's talk page.--Michig (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Junkyard (band)

OK Junkyard (band) is restored - see if you can rescue it with a better ref! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk also restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell's Belles and Hell's Belles & Hell's Belles

I noticed your rationale at the article's AfD. Please note that there are two AC/DC tribute bands named Hell's Belles and I think all your links are referring to "the other one". Yintaɳ  16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at AFD discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead Flowers

On the years-in-country-music pages (such as 2009 in country music), we use Top 20 as a cutoff, and I usually redirect any marginal songs unless I can find a couple more sources. Lambert's song is only at #40 this week, but it has a couple secondary sources, and I can't think of a reasonable way to merge the material to Lambert's main article, so I'm (weakly) keeping it. One source verifies that it is indeed the lead-off single to a third album, so it's not a promo-only — country radio doesn't seem to do promo-only singles very often if at all. Chart position isn't binding, either; The Bumper of My SUV only got to #35, but it got a ton of press over the stunts her fan club pulled to get radio to play the song. Conversely, I haven't been able to find much of anything on Chuck Wicks' "All I Ever Wanted", which was a #14, so I redirected it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dwele

Where did you find all of that stuff on him. Thanks --skiguy06880 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiguy06880 (talk • contribs)

Re:Dwele

I'm pretty sure it's ok to copy it word for word as long as its sourced properly which it is.--skiguy06880 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mateo & Matos

Hi Michig ! As you helped me expand some articles about house musicians, I am asking you if you are able to gather any more data for Mateo & Matos.

Regards, Prunk (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi Michig I came across this Duane & Greg Allman (album), see here it has a date of 1971 not 1973 as article states also I cant seem to find the names of the albums it seems 3 albums are called the same can you shine any light on the subject for me thanks. BigDunc^Talk 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look as well ...

at the Betty Logan (talk) talk page at [5]? I'm having a problem that stems in part from her not taking your prior advice. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. All good, as Betty has now stopped her deletions of accurate information I had input, that had accurate references to boot. There may still be a problem, in that this appears to be a pattern of hers (if you look at the prior talk page comments ... even those she has not deleted ... involving others pointing out the same issue to her). But as to my immediate problem, at this point its all good. I appreciate your comment as to tone; certainly it's something I noticed, though I chose to ignore it and focus on the content.

BTW, it seems that Betty is of the view that she can delete every sentence in a bio re a living person if it is not sourced ... and in fact if it is not sourced by an in-line citation, rather than one of the other acceptable forms of citation. A glance at bios on Wikipedia and a little imagination suggest that if she were to run amok on all bio pages, we would have a significant problem not anticipated by Wiki MOS, which I believe she misreads. Tx again.--Ethelh (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check my U-Roy editing

Hello Michig

Just started a Wiki account. The first thing I did was edit the U-Roy article. Saw your contribution and thought that you might help me out and hopefully point out anything that you think could be improved or removed.

I'm so new to this; I don't know whether I will find your reply on this talk page or mine. So I'll keep an eye on both.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks. Sluffs (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied here.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Velvet Acid Christ

I saw they kept the article, which I have no problem with, but I did have a comment on your response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Acid Christ - just because a site has a staff, it can still be a non-notable blog. Any group of people can come together and make a blog. I'm just saying next time I'd prefer to see more reliable sources - big magazines, newspapers, etc. --AW (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the AFD discussion, Allmusic is a reliable source and Release magazine was a print magazine for 12 years so also looks like an acceptable reliable source. The others - maybe, maybe not, but significant coverage in two decent sources is enough for the article to be kept. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mixtape Messiah 4

Hey there Michig, I noticed you removed the speedy template from Mixtape Messiah 4, citing the MTV article as your reasoning. A single source for a mixtape does not equal notability. WP:NALBUMS states: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. As it stands, the article still does not have significant coverage, and a single MTV article certainly does not make the mixtape any more notable than it was before. Thoughts? — Σxplicit 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider the MTV article significant coverage. There is further coverage from DJBooth.net (who called it "one of the best mixtapes of the year"), XXL, HipHopDX, HipHopDX again (describing it as "one of the biggest mixtapes of the third quarter", Rap2k, RapReviews. I believe that's enough to avoid speedy deletion. The previous AFD included only four contributors, none of whom indicated that they had found, or even looked for coverage, and two of whom have consistently voted to delete any hip-hop-related article put forward at AFD, many of which have been kept after other editors put the effort into finding sources - hardly a safe conviction.--Michig (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

two of whom have consistently voted to delete any hip-hop-related article put forward at AFD, many of which have been kept Oh heh, you noticed that too, huh? I'd love to see a rundown of JBSupreme's afd record (and review the ones ending delete). Can't such a user be discouraged from working in that area?

BTW, see also Mixtape Messiah 2. [6] [7] [8] [9]. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog Pussy

You found the sources, now add them. :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if you want to order people around you've come to the wrong place.--Michig (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But I've added the sources anyway :D - seems a little unfair that I should have to find the sources, argue for the article to be kept, AND then go and add those sources to the article. It all takes a lot more time and effort than typing 'Delete per nom', and it would be nice if a few more editors would put more effort into AFDs - building this encyclopedia needs us to create and improve articles on notable subjects just as much as it needs us to clear out the rubbish. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How utterly ill-mannered to nominate an article for AfD having failed to research it properly, then come to the page of an editor who has, to pester him to do yet more work that you yourself are not interested in doing. 86.44.25.131 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

I would like to know why you removed the proposal for deletion without comment or discussion. I searched the archive and did not find any previous proposals for deletion. Furthermore I believe my argument with regards to the blatant lack of neutrality of the article stand. I don't believe the article to be retrievable as certain activist editors with a pro-FLG agenda have worked tirelessly to keep neutrality out of articles related to this alternative religious group. I would appreciate a response on this issue. Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have already put information on the talk page regarding my neutrality concerns. And have mentioned my serious concerns regarding a general trend of non-neutrality in FLG articles on the NPOV notice board. However the truth is that nearly every FLG associated wikipedian works hard to maintain the non-neutrality while most other editors don't particularly care. China's policy of frequently blocking Wikipedia access actually works against them as many dissenting opinions on FLG come from Chinese residents who can't access Wikipedia. I really think that Wikipedia must not inadvertently become an armature of a highly politicized religious organization on topics related to that religion.Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied here--Michig (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The F.U.'s‎

I see you deprodd'd this article due to references you'd found. Would you mind adding those references to the article?--RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it on my TODO list.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)