User talk:TheJazzDalek/2010-01

January 2010

Missing block

I probably confused it with the other one because they both began with "7"s. In any event, the IP hasn't edited in a few hours, so let's let it go unless/until they start again. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, though this was their second vandalism spree in as many days. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DuPont Registry

Hello TheJazzDalek. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DuPont Registry, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Ref provided implies some notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The prod was removed. I've AfD'd it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Celebrating Life

Your edit states "Removed non-pro review" as description, and as I added the review link I wonder what the criteria are for pro reviews? I'm eager to improve the article but it would be best if you could help me distinguish reputable reviews from others so I don't do the same mistake again. Is there a Wikipedia list for reputable music review sites? Thanks in advance. :) Sebras (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check pretty much any album article that has achieved "good article status", you'll find that music review websites, except for an elite few (e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic), are usually absent. Back when reviews were included in the album infobox, there was a list of suggested sources at WP:ALBUM—it's no longer there. The list wasn't "use only these sources" but it did give a good idea of the sorts of references to use. In this specific case, if it were the only review available I wouldn't have removed it, but since there were also reviews from Allnusic and PopMatters, removing the third (which, incidentally, is among music websites that have been repeatedly spammed onto Wikipedia, perhaps in bid for perceived importance) didn't negatively impact the article. It would certainly be nice if there was a list of "good to use" and "don't use" sources for reviews, much like the lists for charts at WP:CHARTS. Maybe someday! I hope this answers your question; if I can clarify anything or if you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vanessa Lee Evigan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vanessa Lee Evigan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Lee Evigan. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. You were the one who tagged it as NN about 9 months ago; thought you should know about this followup. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cashis items

Thank you for stepping in. As far as I'm concerned, much of what I've been doing is reverting vandalism, since some of the removed material was determined to have a BLP issue at BLPN and the redirect was the outcome of an AfD. But still, I don't want to run the risk of an edit war accusation. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

From this point on, warn and revert should be the course of action (even though the warnings will be redundant). Once he's been warned a "final" time, he'll be reported to WP:AIV and most likely blocked. You're right to want to avoid WP:3RR so make sure you keep track of your edits. Keep up the good work. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to hold off on any other edits for a little while unless it is blatant vandalism. Thanks again. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm putting it on my watchlist. That article's history is much too long. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Press releases

Press releases are reliable sources, especially reteurs who provide information for google, yahoo and Msn news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, a press release published on reuters.com is still a press release. Reuters' news articles are reliable, press releases they reprint are not. In some cases, press releases can be used but only for actual facts, and you have to be careful not to misinterpret promotional claims as facts. To use the press release in question, facts you could use it as a reference for would be 1) that Kristina DeBarge partnered with Wet Seal (selecting pieces for a fashion collection and taking part in a marketing program), 2) it was a cross-promotion, with Wet Seal stores also selling her CD, 3) the promotion was planned to launch November 19, 2009. You could also use it as a reference to say "Future Love" was a planned single, but since it was released as a single, that's a moot point and shouldn't be included in the article. The number of Wet Seal stores and the location of its headquarters, that DeBarge toured with Britney Spears, that Ryan Tedder wrote "Future Love", that there's a remix of "Future Love" with Pitbull, and some of the info about Island Def Jam and SodaPop could all conceivably be used—however, better sources for those could undoubtedly be found and should be used instead. So basically, before the single was released, this reference would have been appropriate for a sentence like "'Future Love' is planned as the third single from her album and a remix featuring Pitbull is scheduled to be sent to radio at the end of October." Once the single was released there was no reason to keep this information (if it wasn't released it could have been edited to indicate that). (Also note that a reference for the actual release date of the single is still needed at the article.) I hope that this makes my point more clear. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was too slow

I was in the process of reviewing the last of the "sources" that you removed from Goon Affiliated before I removed them. You got to it before I did. How does he figure a link to a video on a less than reliable site is a "source" about confirming a track? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I despise "confirmed tracks" lists. They're usually terribly sourced and, even when properly sourced, the actual track list upon the album's release usually bears it no great resemblance (WP:CRYSTAL). TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I also went through all of Plies albums and singles and cut out the extra charts, leaving only 1 Billboard chart per entry. Listing how the album did on lesser charts not only is contrary to WP:CHARTS, but just too promotional looking. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

idea

[1] maybe next time someone points out how ill-researched a nom of yours is, you'll realize it instead of frankly reacting like a douche. just putting it out there, u no 86.44.33.121 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When someone pointed out where my research was lacking, my next edit (8 minutes later) was to admit embarrassment and capitulate on the album's notability. Oh, wait, are you referring to your edit, where you found a single review? I see what you did there! You thought that you were the one who showed the album's notability. Trollfail. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)