User talk:TheJazzDalek/2009-04

April 2009

In regards to the article on Transmutator that you have marked for deletion...this artist is listed on numerous underground and mainstream websites. There are entries for 3 different CDs at freedb, a full page on Last.fm [1], as well as entries on Music Brainz, All Music Guide and even Billboard [2]. The artist has had at least one music video featured on Mtv (mainstream broadcast). Even though none of Transmutator's albums have reached gold status (as far as I'm aware), they have been featured on numerous comipilation albums and for doing hundreds of remixes. Furthermore, I do not understand why Wikipedia would even want to delete an artist's listing just because they are not well known/mainstream. Are you guys just hurting for disk space or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyrxero (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sites you have listed (freedb, Last.fm, Music Brainz) in no way indicate notability; an Allmusic entry is useful as an indication of possible notability but does not make an artist notable by itself (the Billboard link is just a mirror of the Allmusic entry). If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of musical artists, you really should read WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

charted?

Where do I check music charts to find out if an album has charted yet? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHARTSCHART is a table of different countries' charts with links to their websites. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

formatmag

Why are you removing links to this as linkspam? Is there a discussion about this somewhere? 86.44.29.177 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the majority of the links to that site on Wikipedia were added by accounts like this one. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Need more than 15 edits adding as ELs links to interviews relevant to the article subject before you mass revert as linkspam. Look at your edits like this which remove references from articles based on interviews, leaving the statements unsupported. Undo your edits please. If you want to manually review each one added as an EL and adjudge it relevant or not, that's up to you. 86.44.29.177 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I should point out though my own opinion that any site linked as an EL that would ask a rapper, as format did Paul Wall, questions like

Prior to Don Imus saying “nappy headed ho” on ABC and NBC radio, the public perception was that the media and the African-American community did not severely address offensive rap lyrics. Why did it take the comments of a white radio jockey to raise extensive concern by the media and the African-American community, towards offensive rap lyrics?

and

The film Blood Diamond raised public awareness on how diamonds are yielded. How does Grills by Paul Wall [his jewelry line] determine what is a conflict diamond and what is not a conflict diamond?

should probably be left as an EL in the hope that someone will incorporate it as a reference. 86.44.29.177 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was not the only IP spamming links to the site (see where I said "accounts like this one"?). The example you give was a redundant reference (see the adjacent reference I left untouched?). There were some pages where I felt that links to the magazine could not be removed or replaced without hurting the article, and in those cases I left the link where it was. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more of the spammers: 74.100.158.124, 74.123.93.6, 99.234.6.81, 99.233.124.252, 99.234.15.169 TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that these spamming IPs resolve to Toronto, where Format is from. Coincidence? Maybe. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I said "edits like this". [3] None of these (though I haven't checked the above IP additions) are really bad links, so I don't see the point of mass reverting on a point of principle, especially when you're removing references to do so. I suggest starting a discussion before embarking on this sort thing, and, as I said, reviewing or mass-reverting the edits you have already made. 86.44.29.177 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the edit you gave as an example is not a bad edit, and neither is this new one. In both cases, the formatmag.com reference was redundant. If you can show me an edit I made that harmed an article, I promise to take it under consideration. Links I removed that were given as references were very few—most of the links were simply listed as external links. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In the last edit I gave, the refs are specifically to justify each group mentioned in the sentence. However, as this and the Paul Wall article were the specific examples I knew of when I came here, I therefore presumed you were doing this on autopilot and you assure me this is not so. Strictly speaking the Wall reference was redundant, and even my one example remaining has the problem of not being from an interview, thereby raising the question of whether format is even a RS in that context. With all that in mind, I'm not prepared to go through your edits since you assure me most were ELs and due care was taken with refs (also because I am lazy). I still maintain that these are probably valuable resources as ELs in an area where there is a dearth of good writing, but that is a minor difference of opinion. 86.44.29.177 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Styles Of Beyond

Hey man, I noticed you've been doing a lot with the Styles of Beyond pages. We apparently disagree with a few things, like what pages should stay or be deleted (or rather, I disagree with some of Wikipedia's policies, and you just enforce them), but I wanted to say thanks for what you've been doing in cleaning up some of the pages and stuff. It's one of those things where I've been meaning to do it (like create a separate discography page, which you did), but everything seems to get in the way everything else, and it just doesn't get done. I'm actually looking into getting a full discography started on http://www.SOBCentral.com (been by the site by any chance?) sometime here, it's not as daunting a task when I don't have to worry about policies to follow. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and see if you'd been by the site at all. Take care, Jay (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to get back to cleaning up that discography page some more. I actually used SOBCentral when I was cleaning up to help me figure out what was what. That's you? Nice job. Also, thanks for not getting bent out of shape about the deletions. Some people get so butthurt when you tell them an article about their favorite band has to go (as a music fan, I feel their pain, but Wikipedia comes first!). I really do appreciate your attitude. Peace! TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Papercuts

The speedy deletion nomination of this article was somewhat misjudged. An article only needs an assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion. Any band that has released four albums on recognized labels easily has such an assertion. See the article's talk page for evidence of notability that may have been found with a little effort prior to tagging for deletion.--Michig (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no indication of anything even approaching notability in the article. Not that that excuses my failure to dig deeper before tagging it for CSD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4 albums? Twoone record labels in the infobox with articles here? Two former members who each have an article here? That should be plenty to avoid speedy deletion. Remember that for avoiding speedy deletion the criteria are far lower than those required to pass AFD, and the album releases alone could well be enough to pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One label, actually (one redirected to antenna farm), and not a major/big indie either. And there's no indication in those artists' articles that they were members of the band, either (I did check that). 2 albums on Devandra Banhart's label doesn't really pass WP:BAND. All that juicy coverage you dug up does, though. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:BAND is the benchmark for passing AFD. The requirements for avoiding speedy-deletion are much lower.--Michig (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Celldweller

I noticed you are making gradual edits to the Celldweller page in an effort to clean it up. I've been overhauling the pages for Klayton's prior bands Circle of Dust and Argyle Park and had planned to do the same for the Klayton and Celldweller pages. Would you like to collaborate? I've already started a scratch page under my user page on which I'm rewriting and rearranging the Celldweller stuff; its a big mess right now and I'm pulling together sources to cite, but you're welcome to check it out and mess around with it,too. --BrentonRyan (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I can devote the amount of attention that the article needs but I will try to assist you. All of those articles are really over-written (someone went a little nuts on the details, I think). Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like help on; any work you do is appreciated! TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, does the major revision look good? I'm new to Wikipedia and still reading over the tons of FAQ pages, so I probably don't have the best feel for how much detail to go into. Any input is appreciated. --BrentonRyan (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Will try to check it out this evening if I get a chance. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Science,

Hi there, I was wondering if you would be up for getting the article to GA quality. I've recently achieved it for Silent Alarm and would love to get Dear Science to that level, too. However, it always seems to be a two-person job at least. Let me know. Cheers. Rafablu88 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but my editing time is really cut back (started new job). I would help if I could but cannot. Sorry! TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"you are mistaken"

Regarding this edit and associated comment: "you are mistaken", could you kindly explain how, where, and/or in what aspect(s), "I am mistaken" please? Thanking you in advance in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your thinking that Soil is an exception to any rule, specifically MOS:CAPS. (c.f. K.D. Lang) TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)