User talk:TheJazzDalek/2010-03

Bin Laden (song)

Hi, if you redirect articles like you did to Bin Laden (song) can you please make sure that you don't just totally delete all the references and instead add them into the main article? You should also probably consider adding a merge template too beforehand so that others could discuss whether the redirect is appropriate. Thanks Smartse (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that, in my opinion, needed to be brought over (two of the three references were for who was on the record and the third was for a quote about an album the song's not even on). And since it pretty clearly fails WP:NSONG there's no need for discussion. If you feel otherwise, it can be brought to AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet you might want to check out

Lolipopz99 has made yet another sockpuppet - WuNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Same type of edits, same pages, etc.) --Blastmaster11 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wondered when he'd be back. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonny Greenwood

Hi there - just a quick note to let you know that I've reverted your recent edit to the Jonny Greenwood article. You cited your reason as "reference overkill". Because it is a biography for living persons, it's best to have reliable sources for everything included in the article. There are several reasons for this, one being that if one of the website references' address is moved, we have others to rely on besides that one ciatation. Besides, verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy. It can't hurt to have plenty of reliable sources =) TheTwoRoads (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplying three references for one sentence does not make it more true. Choose the best one (in this case, exclaim.ca) and remove the rest. Anything more than that is bloat. If a link later dies, a quick trip to the Wayback Machine will fix it 9 times out of 10. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my first post sounded aggresive and confrontational, I swear I didn't intend for it to come accross like that. Looking at what was in the references, I'm certain that they were sources for that entire paragraph, not just that one last sentence. I did take a look at them, and basically they all make the same points. I've changed it back to your edit with just that one source from exclaim. I suppose you were right, it's just that I'm somewhat, erm, protective of certain articles that I've been trying to improve. Yes, Wikipedia is a collective project, and you were being reasonable. I'll admit that I was a bit hasty in reverting, but that word "overkill" really got to me for some reason. Again, apologies for making a big deal out of nothing. Cheers! TheTwoRoads (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's cool. The "overkill" was a reaction to dealing with similar examples (usually way worse) too many times. I could (should) have been less brusque in my edit summary. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

List of anti-war songs

Hi there. You added the {{Notability}} template to this article; I have removed it, as I think that list has a notable subject (anti-war songs), though it does have issues with original research with regards to what should be included. If you think it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I suggest you take it to WP:AFD. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Also - love the username, by the way. :) Robofish (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

HipHopDX

Why is this site recognized as SPAM? There are so many uses of this site as a source. Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'll check the contributions of the user linked in my edit summaries, you'll see that every single edit of his was adding a link to that site; that's linkspam. I'm not removing every link to the site, only the spammed ones. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Charts

Since when, exactly, is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network not a reliable chart source? How exactly is it any different from using Triple J or BBC Radio 1, both of which you'd find extreme objection to disqualifying as sources? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In WP:CHARTS, regarding the list of charts that can be used it states: "charts appropriate for wikipedia are not limited to those listed on this page, others can also be included as long as they are IFPI registered" and The R3-30 chart is not IFPI registered (list here). TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that this mysterious new criterion completely destroys any possibility of ever demonstrating chart notability for any genre outside of the mainstream Top 40 charts, right? Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

It was rumored on the internet that the album Wu-Massacre, done by Method Man, Ghostface Killah, and Raekwon was an actual group. Method Man and Ghostface Killah recently spoke out denying these claims, stating that it is simply a collaboration - not an actual group (kind of like GZA and DJ Muggs's Grandmasters collaboration). I added this information, with actual quotes and sources to the Wu-Massacre page, so being that there is now proof that it is not a group, I took the Meth, Ghost & Rae link off of the Wu-Massacre page, as well as the members pages - this Meth, Ghost & Rae page by the way should be deleted. Anyways, it turns out that WuNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the one who made the "Meth, Ghost & Rae" page, and seems to be pretty bothered by my pointing out that it's not an actual group. He's so bothered that he recently undid all of my edits regarding this matter (even though there is sources). Although this user was recently denied as a sockpuppet of Lolipopz99, it is beyond obvious that it is the same person. They must have gotten a new computer, or moved - the edits and behavior are identical, and the WuNation name was made right after his last sockpuppet was blocked (by the way, 99.18.4.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) must be their new I.P. address because they're making many Lolipopz99 type edits). Anyway, I really don't want to get caught up in a childish edit war over a matter that has sources. Do you have any suggestions on how this situation should be handled? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I though it seemed a little ridiculous to create an article for that "group" when it's really just a collaboration. Since checkuser failed us (I agree, it's certainly the same user), the only thing I can think of is to take the group's article to AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

God Is in the TV Zine

Hi. you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Its restoration has been requested, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have undeleted it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)