User talk:Michig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Specials and ska music[edit]

Hello Michig – I'm absolutely baffled by your reversion and reasoning, to be honest. Both the links call the Specials a ska band, that's exactly why I used them. The Specials own official website describes them as a ska band. They have ALWAYS been known as a ska band in the UK, and NEVER as a reggae band. What is your reasoning for calling them reggae? Richard3120 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Specials played a mixture of ska and (early) reggae songs, and 2-tone was never pure ska. While they are primarily regarded as a ska band by some that doesn't automatically mean that every track they recorded is a ska track. "Ghost Town" has none of the characteristics of ska and is clearly their attempt at playing reggae as the article explains. I am not calling *them* a reggae band, but "Ghost Town" is (mainly) a reggae track. The third album released under the name Special AKA doesn't have a single ska track on it, but a lot of people still call them a ska band. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. You are right, In the Studio contains no ska and indeed not a great deal of reggae either a lot of the time. I would certainly not argue with anyone who wanted to add punk, new wave or other genres to the Specials music - after all, "muzak" often crops up in descriptions of the second album, and they certainly weren't easy listening... This is why I tend to avoid getting involved in genre discussions! Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Kiitra language[edit]

Hello! You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiitra language as delete. I see that a brand new account (as in, their very first edit) has now posted on the AfD discussion's talk page. They appear to be asking for a restoration or maybe a userfication of the article; I'm not sure what they want, but they seem to be protesting the deletion. They really should have put their message here on your talk page, but I'll AGF that they really are a new account and didn't know how to deal. Up to you, how (or whether) you want to respond. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - have replied there. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of warning templates[edit]

Please do not add flippant warnings to my talk page. (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a perfectly appropriate warning and if you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Your choice. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it was not. I was not edit warring. (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You reverted the same edit three times in a content dispute. That's pretty much the definition of edit-warring. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I twice reverted unexplained removals of cited content by User:Murry1975. I then reverted an edit made by User:, whose very first edit edit was to revert one of those, with their edits strangely being nearly universally changing the listed nationality of various boxers. (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo removal[edit]

Michig, we have recently been informed that you have changed a photo that we've upload with permissions yesterday on the page for Will Sergeant. Please remove the photo as the artist does not want that one on there. They requested to add the one that I did yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly2015 (talkcontribs) 23:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The photo you added was deleted as it didn't have the correct licensing. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told it did. We will keep trying until we finally get the photo that you used off. No problem.

On Mar 18, 2015, at 5:59 AM, "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" <> wrote: "There's a problem. Can you kindly ask Mr. Will to change the license on the Flickr page to Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0/4.0 as per his wish? I am sending you the screenshot that points to the problem that exists. The Wikimedia Foundations deals strictly with copyright policy, and as you know a copyright violation case might cost some big numbers. I hope you understand."

As a follow up to the last email, here's the link: <> Yours sincerely, Dipankan Bandyopadhyay

You need not make further modifications onto the file page. The file, however may be used anywhere across any Wikimedia project. Thank you. I shall now close the case as successfully resolved. Thanks again.

Yours sincerely, Dipankan Bandyopadhyay

This photo needs to be added. The artist is not happy with the photo you used.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy[edit]

Hi, given that their was no opposition to deletion, I think you could have closed this as a "soft" delete. Could yoou perhaps have a second look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

While PanchoS's arguments are not explicitly in favour of keeping, there are at least potential arguments there for keeping and in the absence of any other input I wouldn't feel happy with deleting. I think submitting a second AfD might be the best approach, perhaps leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals to attract some input. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It will have to wait then, because immediately renominating is generally not well-received... --Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Hey, sorry about the hullabaloo around the MBV 'You Made Me Realise' edits. I *realise* you are a major contributor and I am just a minor editor, but one pet peeve I have with music articles is people piling on a record/artist page to list that their band has covered some song, it's almost always profiteering. Yes- Hendrix covering Dylan is notable, but the "covers" section of a modern music article is oftentimes an advertisement. I'm hoping you'll agree with me to some extent. I had this epiphany moment after listening to that EP for the 12,689th time and looked it up on wikipedia and was promptly annoyed that the article was besmirched with adverts. I personally didn't think any of those cover versions were properly notable, but I am a reasonable guy and am willing to discuss.

Kevimetal (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

Dear 'Michig', Face-smile.svg
I wanted to express my gratitude to you for your helpful intervention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live from Patrick Street. Regardless of the fate of my article, I will always appreciate your willingness to act in support of a fellow editor, as we all strive to improve our encyclopedia. Thank you once again for your thoughtful assistance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 10:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Redo of redirected page?[edit]

Is it okay to recreate the A$AP Yams redirect page for the ASAP Mob? Reply back with an answer. Please and thank you.

P.S.: I'm referring to Yams' moniker with a dollar sign. DBrown SPS 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Done. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cormac McCarthy (musician).
Message added 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA1000 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Screaming Dead[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Screaming Dead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:


While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mdann52 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wgolf and prods[edit]

I've been through a lot of the stuff posted by the author of those articles to remove copyvio lyrics. I notice that over the last few days he seems to be working long hours adding articles about films and songs, frequently only referencing to blogspot and other unreliable places. I think it's that author that needs to slow down rather than Wgolf. I'm not commenting on the notability issue, as I don't know much about films, but I do know that the lyrics of Bollywood etc films are unlikely to be public domain, which is why I concentrated there. To my mind, there is definitely a referencing issue, and possibly an attempt to drum up visitors to certain sites. I leave it to those more knowledgeable about films to deal with it, but will keep an eye out for the lyrics. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say they both need to slow down. If an editor is creating a lot of problematic articles that needs to be raised with the editor in question and at the adminstrators noticeboard if there is an ongoing issue - some of the Indian film/television articles Wgolf prodded already had one or more sources from quality publications such as the Times of India. Many of Wgolf's prods that I deproded are articles by other editors including albums by artists that we have articles on, sometimes already containing decent sources - they are generally not great articles but Wgolf seems to be rather indiscriminate in his attempts at deletion and doesn't appear to be making any effort to improve said articles or look at alternatives such as merging or redirecting, and because of the number of articles that he is tagging he is creating work unnecessarily for other editors. --Michig (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay sorry about the number of deletions[edit]

Yeah it did go too much. BTW-I found this The Mafia (film) and said it was previously up for a afd but voted as a redirect so I am unsure does it go as a csd-previously deleted or what as it never was actually deleted but voted as a redirect as seen here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mafia (2014 film). Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected it. It wouldn't be speedyable under G4 as it wasn't deleted at the first AfD, but it should remain as a redirect until the issues from that AfD have been addressed. If it gets reverted without improvement it can be protected to prevent it happening again. --Michig (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the user was making quite a few unsourced pages didn't realize I was going after the same guy until later on. (which is similar to another user who was blocked already who this guy does have a spi on already as well) (as for the uneeded filmography article the reason for the prod was because it was created by a sock puppet before the sock master was banned who was doing tons of these uneeded filmographies that were getting deleted) I do feel bad though for doing that many prods. Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think all the prods and unprods have gone - Ponyo's been mass deleting per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj. Looks like another Morning277 type of thing. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NWF Heavyweight Championship[edit]

If it was previously deleted at AfD, it's speediable, but I think you're incorrect and it was previously deleted as Prod. I suggest you AfD it this time and then if it's deleted it can be WP:SALTed as repeatedly recreated if necessary. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right - I hadn't spotted the previous prod. Will AfD it. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff. :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NB: Special:Contributions/Axe2x --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Music is boring[edit]

Hey buddy!

Music-related articles are boring and you should spend your time editing other articles instead. See this list for some suggestions. I mean, really, c'mon now! ! ! North America1000 02:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Several thousand species of spiders and collembola don't have articles yet - I'm not going to run out of things to do. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy April Fools' Day to you! North America1000 06:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Just about to go and see what hilarious japes people have come up with at AfD today...--Michig (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
North America1000 07:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Humour is one thing. Witless repetition of other people's bad jokes is something else. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Music makes people do this – North America1000 07:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Music doesn't usually make ME do that - then again, when people around me are dancing, I'm usually playing... Peridon (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It takes music + alcohol in large quantities to make me do that. --Michig (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Nigel Boocock[edit]

Why did you change the edit on Nigel Boocock? He passed away this morningHoldenV8 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Because no source was cited and a Google search didn't find any reliable sources to support it. Living people are presumed living until reliable sources say they're dead. Adding unsourced claims of death is a violation of WP:BLP. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - This is the Sydney Showground Speedway group page on Facebook. Go and check out the tributes to Nigel BoocockHoldenV8 (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Surely you can wait until the BSPA put out an announcement can't you? --Michig (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No problems at all in waiting. But it is true unfortunatelyHoldenV8 (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I would expect there will be something out within a few hours. We need to get the facts right, e.g. not stating that he died on the 3rd and that it was announced on the 2nd. Sadly we get people prematurely 'killed off' on Wikipedia several times a year, and when people do die we get inaccurate information added because people take social media posts as fact. On one of the most visible sites on the internet I think people's families and friends deserve better than that. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah agreedHoldenV8 (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help[edit]


I noticed that you removed an inappropriate speedy tag from the article 18+ (band). The same user marked Centre for Policy of Legal Reforms as a speedy. I easily found a couple of references on google and have put them in the article plus contested the speedy on the talk page. The user had also tagged no references and linkrot??? on the same article.

I briefly looked over the contribs [1] and edit count [2] for the editor, and noticed he/she is relatively new and seems very heavy handed with the tags and speedies. Could you look over the situation and respond to it as you see fit?

If you have time please look over his contrib list bcause there are a lot of heavily tagged articles on there. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing that now. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick help! Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Claude Bessy (singer)[edit]

Please take a look at this. Singing was a minor part of Bessy's career. He's at least as well known as a writer, and also as the VJ/video producer at The Haçienda. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

PROD of Palem Srikanth Reddy[edit]

Just to let you know, it had been PROD'd before. See [3], although the user/subject of that seems to be acting in rather bad faith with his moves. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it had been BLP Prodded and then moved to userspace to avoid deletion...then moved back, so I'm happy that this should still be treated as a new article. --Michig (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Palem Srikanth Reddy[edit]

Seems like the page creator keeps on moving it from a userspace to a page back to a userspace-it is getting confusing. Palem Srikanth Reddy, might be best to just delete it and salt it at this point! Wgolf (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As it stands it will be deleted next Monday if it isn't sourced by then. If it's moved back to userspace it will still be deleteable as an unsourced BLP. --Michig (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Please, check the mail I sent you and help me to cope the problem, I described there. This is very important! I am sorry for bothering and thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talkcontribs) 19:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC) LanaSimba (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been changing some of the prods I put up for albums into redirects[edit]

Should I put that it was a article before or just leave that part alone? I did send a message to one person for the article My Cup of T since the creator is still around. While for the band X-Dream I basically just changed them all into redirects except one that is under afd. Wgolf (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be fine just to redirect them with a suitable edit summary. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Love Comes to an End[edit]

At the AfD debate I noticed your comments "There's no sourced content to merge", since that time I have sourced a number of references that may address your concerns. I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the recent changes to the article. Dan arndt (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Jason Maek[edit]

Hey I am very sorry to bother you, but I am confused on why the page Jason Maek got deleted. In the discussion it said there weren't 3rd party sources, but I linked and referenced what I thought were enough articles showing his relevance to the music industry. If you have any advice on how to make the article more credible, please let me know. I have three other articles that are all referenced around Jason Maek and I am confused why he is the only one that got deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschmitz25 (talkcontribs)

Basically those editors that contributed to the discusssion didn't see evidence that Jason Maek satisfies the notability criteria (WP:NMUSIC). Some of the sources cited in the article when it was deleted would not satisfy WP:RS. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand how the sources cited did not satisfy the notability criteria. They are third party sources that are directly indicate indicate Jason Maek as a credible artist. I can show you the articles I'm talking about. I am requesting that the deletion be undone.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sschmitz25 (talkcontribs)

Those sources were in the article when it it was deleted. The participants in the deletion discussion agreed that they were not sufficient to establish notability. One participant, now blocked from editing, expressed a view in favour of keeping. There's nothing new here that wasn't considered by those who argued for deletion. Looking at those sources, Buzzfeed, Consequence of Sound, Arena,, and NCC Linked are not reliable sources, Elicit is a deadlink, Gust is just a company listing with no independent coverage. That leaves one Hype article and a Columbia Chronicle article that is really about the label. I would suggest that you wait until more substantial coverage of Jason Maek appears in genuine reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes any of the sources not reliable? They are all credible media articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschmitz25 (talkcontribs)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If I add more content and reliable sources, please undo the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschmitz25 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you find more coverage in reliable sources let me know and I'll restore it to userspace for you to work on. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

These Riddim Driven albums[edit]

So I have found tons of these that I have just put tags for notability and unreferenced (except for one so far that actually mentions doing well) anyway, I was wondering if these should be redirects-but I'm not sure to what! For example here is one: Riddim Driven: Engine 54 & Humanity (I found these looking at the backlog and found one of them listed) Wgolf (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a quite successful series of albums and in most cases they do receive coverage, so there will be scope for improvement. It's debatable whether there is enough to justify articles for some of them. For the one you mentioned there is already an Allmusic review linked in the article and I also found a review from The Beat in Google Books. We have an article for the series at Riddim Driven. I think the best approach may be to do a thorough search to see what sources are out there and then see whether the articles on the albums should be merged to the article on the series or whether some have enough to remain as standalone articles. The article on the series could certainly be improved with more details on the riddims used, producers, sources, etc. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloé (Belgian singer)[edit]

So the fact that there are no English language sources nor corresponding articles in the non-English Wikis of those languages and the article does not establish clear Notability for this person was not enough? A 4 year old stub that not even the creator will improve continues to languish. The AfD was discussed for nearly a month and no one expanded the article in that time. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No English language sources? It's irrelevant which language(s) sources are in. AfD is not for cleanup or there to get other editors to work on articles. The AfD lasted for three and a half weeks and the key thing is that in that time there was not a consensus reached. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Deprod of Forever Oeuvre[edit]

Why did you deprod this article? The concerns were very legitimate. You say that it was already discussed at AfD and that that version of the article was completely different, but the concerns are the exact same. The article exhibits no notability, and those concerns haven't ever been addressed, so this article should have never been created or recreated to begin with. They don't meet any points at WP:BAND, nor will they ever considering they're just a local band from PA and have been inactive for over four years. Additionally, there's obvious advertisement plugging in the article with all the external links in-prose. I know these problems would be brought up at AfD, but this article is so obvious it doesn't need an AfD process, just a prod. Jacedc (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). It would have been de-prodded because that's the policy. See WP:PROD: "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD." --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dweller: Ahh, thanks for the info! Somehow I was oblivious to that. I feel silly. Thanks! Jacedc (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes - previously discussed at AfD so can't prod, completely different article to the one that was deleted so can't speedied as a G4, so taking back to AfD would be the option if deletion is sought. --Michig (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Per W. Undelete[edit]

Per Wickstrom article that was deleted. May I propose that more information be added to make the page more notable?

Recoverywp (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You would need to find reliable independent sources discussing the subject in detail, not just more information. --Michig (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]