User talk:Woovee

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

November 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Goth subculture. Please note that I have reverted your changes as some of them appeared to be deleting content, which requires explanation. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Gothic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Amadou & Mariam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Something Else (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Master of My Make-Believe (album), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hill and Diplo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop spamming NYKOP page![edit]

It seems the vandal is you because you came on Not Your Kind of People page and added that terrible Clash Music review. I mean not just the rating but the content itself. Also it's very, very short. I can't call this a honest review, but a hateful and biased review.

Also you removed a 5 star review just to add that crappy review. That Clash Music review can be found through Metacritic link anyway.

I have a feeling that you wrote that review... Otherwise why you're so insistent? Deepblue1 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • As I said before, you're the vandal because YOU try to insert your own terrible review.Deepblue1 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You started to get on my nerves. I will NOT tolerate your attempts to insert your shitty review. Move the issue on Talk Page of Not Your Kind of People and let's vote! Deepblue1 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Coexist (album), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't reintroduce your change to the article without explaining them elsewhere first. It saves a lot of reverting of mass changes. As Template:Album ratings shows, web publications are not italicized. Metacritic's score is already discussed at length in the leading prose of the section, so the template would be redundant. Your removal of the table because it's too much to you is not a reason to remove it. Like in GA articles such as Here I Stand (Usher album) and 8701, it's useful in presenting information too complex to be expressed in prose (WP:TABLE) Other table form information includes accolades for an album such as in Kid A. I'm trying to improve this article, so your preferential edits are getting a bit in the way. Dan56 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Also on the point of the ratings template, you did notice how I did not mention the rating given by the reviewers in prose? It will already be noted in the ratings template, so I avoided being redundant. The Metacritic field in the template is an optional parameter (Template:Album ratings) Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother looking at what I did in my previous edit? I didn't add or remove any reviews. I removed "However, This is PiL has also been met with mixed reviews" and "The album has also received negative reviews". It's completely unnecessary to say that. Look at any other wikipedia article about an album that has a metacritic score in the 60s and you'll see that they never mention that the album has also received negative and mixed reviews. They let the reviews speak for themselves. Also, stop with the "you're a Punk sockpuppet" bullshit. I'm not a sockpuppet and your baseless accusations are completely irrelevant to my edits of This is PiL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonran (talkcontribs) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverting on behalf of others[edit]

So Valboo wrote it, then I copy-edited the text you're referring to at The Weeknd (with an edit summary). Then you reverted me, saying "This was a good job" and Consensus is "not for the only opponent in 9 months" (whatever the hell that means). Check my edit summary (also available at the article's history) and I explained why it wasnt in fact a "good job" entirely, so I copy-edited it. Stop reverting me please. I explained myself at the talk page, addressed any and every point you made, and if we both want to avoid WP:3RR we should talk it out. Dan56 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific issue about my improvement that's violating any guideline, then dont imply some page ownership that I cant make constructive edits to this article, which I've mightily improved since when I first edited it. Dan56 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Please refrain from deleting content you do not agree with, as you did here to The Weeknd. Disruptive genre-related edits made to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birthday Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Although you mean well, I've again reverted your edits to Billboard Hot 100 and Alternative Songs. These additions are not worded very well and do not really improve the articles... in fact they are quite muddled and confusing. There's no need to focus on 1990's policies for the charts, nor add clipped screenshots from Google books, and the part about "three types of Hot 100" is inaccurate/doesn't make sense. The component charts are already mentioned in the main Hot 100 article, and they also have their own spin-off pages. If you're going to add large sections to these or change around the intro sections, please discuss on the Talk Page(s) first. Thanks! - eo (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur[edit]

While you're at it, you might want to check that article for close-paraphrases. See my sandbox. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur (band): problems of neutrality[edit]

You helped this article to get GA last year where as there is a important problem of WP:NPOV concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the talk of the article. This needs to be fixed quickly. Woovee (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just looked, and it appears you wish to make an edit. Just go and do it. If there's a problem with it, someone will make an adjustment, or enter a discussion with you. Be bold! Please be bold - that's how we make progress. If we entered into a discussion and got agreement for every minor edit, then Wikipedia wouldn't be the success it is. It was because of the slowness of getting agreement for content on Nupedia that Wikipedia was created. "Wiki" means quick - its essence is that multiple users can directly edit text collaboratively and directly, rather than having long discussions to get agreement first. Do it the wiki way - WP:Be bold! SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I did several edits the last two weeks; the problem is they were quickly reverted and rejected by the same person who has been presenting the "song 2" single as "a hit" in the USA, where as 1) it was just a "a radio hit on alternative modern rock radios" !! and 2) not a hit at all in terms of commercial success as "Song2" never cracked the Hot 100 that is the only Billboard chart that includes "units sold" and "singles sales". " Billboard modern rock tracks" indeed is a list that mentions only the 40 most-played songs on alternative rock radios which is a very special sub-format. More important, this billboard isn't based from "units sold and single sales" at all. Clearly, this article should have never been rated GA because it mis-interpreted sources, and presents facts in a fallacious way. It's clearly original research that presenting "Song2" as "a hit". As an adminisrator who passed this GA and who didn't see this problem because you assumed, sources had been used following the wiki guidelines of neutrality, sticktosource and nooriginalresearch, you were abused in a certain way too. As a reader who knew Blur's history, and their cult status in the USA, they just had a album certified gold in 1997, I was baffled by the presentation of "song2" as a hit. It is also perverse because european people don't know exactly what is the Billboard alternative songs, and what is the Hot 100 (which is the equivalent of the uk singles chart if you prefer). Thank you for replying so quickly. - Woovee (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you help me to help you by stating the situation in one or two sentences. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
In the lead, it is said that "song 2" brought the band mainstream success in the states. This is not true: it was only the album that was certified gold in the USA, not that "song 2" single. Indeed, this single never entered the Hot 100 (the chart that include the sales): so how could it be presented as a hit. What is true is that the "song2" single was played a lot on alternative modern rock radios, it peaked at n°6 in the modern rock radios. so it was only a radio alternative rock radio. The use of the word "hit" is to me not appropriate. I would say that it had heavy rotation on alternative radios. Woovee (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the history and now see the situation. I agree with you. I was about to make the change, but note that it has already been done. There are now three editors who agree that "hit" means a record in the Billboard 100. Any further problems, please give me a ping. It helps if you explain quickly and clearly what the situation is. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indopug, has reverted most of Woovee's improvements with the assumption that what was there was accurate to the high-quality reliable sources, but much of it isn't. It can be difficult to improve an article when it has several watchers making sure that dubious content does not change. The problem is, Indopug didn't bother to actually check the sources before reverting. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that at last, some people agree with the fact that there's a problem of neutrality on this article, huge to my point of view. Woovee (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your efforts to bring neutrality and accuracy to Wikipedia articles. It can be difficult to break-through on some of our pages, especially when several "veteran" editors are protecting dubious content, but hang-in there; we need more editors like you! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Song 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/artist/292472/blur/chart?f=377 Billboard Alternative Songs] Billboard.com. Retrieved 9-1-2014}}</ref>
  • name="allmusic">{{Allmusic|class=song|id=t1279006}} Song 2 | AllMusic<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> It has been licensed worldwide on numerous occasions. Its first appearance came as the title

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *1996: ''Il Terzo Secolo (The Third Century))''. Feltrinelli, Italy. Essays on the USA{{fact|date=January 2014}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur "hit" dispute[edit]

I have merged the two suggested wordings. Please review to see if it is acceptable: Talk:Blur_(band)#Dispute over "hit". SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blues rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Fraser may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • walesartsreview.org/elizabeth-fraser/ 'Elizabeth Fraser Live'] by Adrian Master, Welsh Art Review]</ref><ref>[http://www.lucypotterton.com/#!about/c786 Lucy Potterton homepage - About Lucy
  • review-8014875.html "Meltdown: Elizabeth Fraser, Royal Festival Hall - review"]. ''Evening Standard]]''. 7 August 2012. Retrieved 10-12-12</ref> <ref name="Mugan"/><ref name="Financial Times">Hunter-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks re: Fahey reviews[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to edit all those scaruffi reviews on the Fahey album pages. Airproofing (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scaruffi URL[edit]

Hi, I don't think that the URL you are using works anymore, as the thread has been archived. I think this should work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviewsgoethean 17:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Goth subculture[edit]

Hi Woovee, You stated that the Goth Bible is not (WP:NOTABILITY) notable enough. If you go to this Policy, you will see that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." WP:NNC says that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I would appreciate it if you would not delete content sourced to a published book on the topic.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Woovee, Could you send me the link to the Wikipedia policy against copying sentences from other WP articles? As I understand it, the requirement is that you acknowledge the source in your edit summary, which I did.
Here is the editing guideline from WP:CWW: "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." I read CWW, and didn't find any discussion of copying being discouraged. If I missed the section, please point it out to me, thanks.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Murphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)