User talk:Madchester: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:57, 17 January 2010

I'm on a wiki-break and will be doing more "casual" editing over the next couple of months

Talk archives:

Tour Dates

Why do you keep reverting the tour dates to A Rush of Blood to the Head tour, they are the real dates.--Coldplay Expert 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add details to Wikipedia because they're true, we add them if they can be verified by a reliable source. A fan site lacks proper editorial screening and is not considered a reliable source.
We don't add flag icons merely for decorations (WP:MOSFLAG).

Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, can we please add the dates in some form instead of deleting them alltogether?--Coldplay Expert 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I must say that even though we dont always get along, you do seem to be a good editor of coldplay articles, putting something in Strawberry Swing before I can! :)--Coldplay Expert 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

Hi there. Flag icons were removed from two Depeche Mode touring articles and I can't read anything on WP:MOSFLAG that states that placing them in such a way (in this case, an article about a concert tour) is inappropriate. I did read the section about using decorative images (WP:ALT) which recommended disabling the link to the flag icons to improve web usability. Will that suffice? Thanks. (Freak.scenery (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I used flag icons in the articles I was editing as a visual cue for the reader, so it is unfair to deem them redundant. Per the appropriate use section of WP:MOSICON, icons may "aid navigation in long lists or tables of information as some readers can more quickly scan a series of icons due to the visual differences between icon." It also suggests that these icons are accompanied by sortable tables, which I plan to do.

The guideline also states "Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing visual cues or layout".

To my understanding, the "do not emphasise nationality without good reason" guideline applies to instances where flags are associated with a particular person, or a particular collective of people or organisation. I find it hard to believe that people would assume emphasis on the locations where the tour dates took place. The flags are in seperate columns after all, away (but still adjacent) to the country name. Again, I reiterate my perspective on their utility as a visual cue. (Freak.scenery (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Depeche Mode Tour of the Universe

Hi. What did you do? Before your modifications the article was perfect. The flag icons were a easier way to navigate through lists of tour dates... Why do you delete the setlist variations? Also as the flag icons, it were a easy way to find the selist from your city. I don't understand you. For last, if you want references or sources, please visit the Official Depeche Mode WebSite http://www.depechemode.com/tour/setlists.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Live.Forever.11 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Use

Having just read WP:MOSFLAG, I find nothing that this edit violates so why do you keep on reverting the edits to Viva la Vida Tour?--Coldplay Expert 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DM Setlist Variations for TOTU

As a freelance writer doing work on the band, the setlist variations are incredibly helpful and there are few places on the web that are as comprehensive and as frequently updated as the wikipedia is. The current format is user-friendly as well. If the point of wikipedia is to assist scholars, then the setlist variations, as presented, should be left intact. Perhaps after the tour a cleaner way of presenting material could be worked out (and I agree that the number-crunching stuff regarding how often a song was played is just trainspotting for the sake of). But an "in-progress" tour should be allowed some leeway to organically develop. In any case, it is working for me, as a researcher, the way it is. Jackbox1971 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and just a starting point for research - it is not an almanac (or fan site) recording each and every detail of an event. Fan sites and setlist wikis (like Setlist.fm) contain details that go beyond the scope of Wikipedia's coverage. --Madchester (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, something like a simple list of songs shouldn't be something that needs ground-up, primary sourced research. I can get verification from people who actually see the shows, but one does have to start somewhere. I am not always sure how well thought out the various guidelines on wiki are. To my mind, you are either organic or you are not. That being said, I appreciate the care you take with your monitoring. It is slightly terrifying but comforting too. (Just a little levity...) Jackbox1971 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

I didnt know you could not put lyrics into wikipedia is there a rule that states this? Thanks for future ref(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Title Cards

Hi there I am in need of some advice. Is there a rule in wikipedia that states that TV Series articles absolutely most use a title card. If so I have been talking to someone by the name of Bignole and apparently they often edit articles. But everytime I submit something even if it's minor they change it. And some of the reason's there sending aren't making sense. I've asked them to show me a guideline that explains title cards on main pages but they've sent me nothing. Now, I've made some errors in submitting fan-art and reverting photos and I'm sorry but i don't know what else to do to please this person, Bignole. So I need your help? --JKSarang 03:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs)

Roman888

Thanks for the reminder you gave Roman888; I really don't want to respond to him at all, and thereby reinforce his petulant behavior. Have you looked at his user page? (not talk page) He's using similar language there. I after this attack, I'm starting to ask myself where we reach a point with him that some sort of action is in order. Drmargi (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, given the below, this has begun to make me a bit uncomfortable with a tone that verges on a threat. Drmargi (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madchester

Madchester, thank you for your constructive comments in the discussion page of Kitchen Nightmares. Your arguments have merit, but is entirely unconvincing. Rather than condemning the behaviour of DrMargi and his clique, I will just be gathering lots of evidence of their continuous reverts and report them. Just for your information, I will be taking the matter of Kitchen Nightmares to arbitration (I have already gotten positive feedback from one of the main moderators about the updates) when I have the time and settle this matter once and for all. Roman888 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POINT... Wiki's not a platform to hold some vendetta against other editors. The tone I see here is one of "getting back" at certain editors for disgareeing with you. That's not approriate behaviour here.... --Madchester (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out to you that there is no personal vendetta here against any individuals, rather a pattern of abuse that can be seen over the course of a few months - the constant reverts and censorship. Rather than discussing the issues, there are automatic reverts and censorship being carried out. Notice that a certain individual keeps coming to your talk page and others' looking for for a shoulder to cry on. Don't you see a pattern of abuse and collusion ....WP:VAN? Roman888 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

As you clearly haven't engaged both partys of the disagreement I will be looking into complaining about your decision as an admin. The other guy clearly was displaying edit war behavior but you have not commented this on his profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.9.117 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halladay

Hi, Madchester. I'm noting some confusion at Roy Halladay about including information about the apparently imminent trade. I agree with your reversion of the infobox change, but I don't find in WP:CRYSTAL any basis for excluding reports about the trade on the grounds that no official announcement has been made: WP:CRYSTAL imposes no such requirement: it merely says that unverifiable speculation ought not to be included. As this story has been published in the sports pages of dozens of major newspapers across the continent, it's not at all unverifiable speculation: it's plenty verifiable: it's been published in multiple reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL was never intended to exclude information like this, and, in my opinion, any editor is well within his or her rights to include the fact that an imminent trade has been reported in The Globe, The Star, The New York Times, The Washington Post (it's a long list). If it's solid enough to appear here and here, that's plenty good enough for Wikipedia.

If we were required to stick only to information from official sources, Wikipedia would be composed chiefly of material drawn from press releases. Cheers. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's only verifiable information about a tentative agreement. There are no verifiable sources about the deal having been completed by any of the 3 clubs. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we avoid changes based on speculated roster changes - hence we wait for a verifiable source to confirm a transaction is actually official before changing XXX number of related pages. --Madchester (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Can you point out the personal attack? I raised a point that the editor in question reverted a change I made and, in my opinion, is now intentionally misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookie (cockatoo). Thank you.. WossOccurring (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AAGF. Don't take it personally when your recent AFD noms have not "gone your way". Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were throwing around accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, despite there being no evidence for this. I'd expect better from an experienced user; clearly not the case. WossOccurring (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:AAGF and don't take critcism about your edits personally. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach. Also, if you didn't vivaciously criticise people in such a way, there would be nothing for them to be offended about. Just something to think about. WossOccurring (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:AAGF and WP:COOL - the only way you'll learn the ropes around Wiki is to learn from any criticism from other editors. No one is criticizing you - only your edits; this goes back to not taking othe people's criticsm of your edits personally. i.e., consider why another editor would suspect your edits of violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT and learn from those comments.... if you review WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's common for editors to nominate an AFD becuase they view the topic as trivia... Thanks. --Madchester (talk)

N.B... editor WossOccuring has since been blocked indefinitely for bein a sockpuppet.... see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalejenkins --Madchester (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re kitchen blah blah

I did 'again review the talk page carefully'

I disagree, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.245.131 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you win, keep the page however you please. I have a life and no more time to waste. You are a perfect example of what has driven everyone else off of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.245.131 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Wiki's about reaching consensus - not unilaterally changing articles as you please. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Madchester! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 936 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Sophie Muller - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Ken Nelson (British record producer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Vanessa Lorenzo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI Kai Tak and YouTube

So, I need an explanation for some of your edits. You specifically deleted links to YouTube (not a personal site) but left up links to personal web pages on the same page. The YouTube links are the only existing public videos off the airport and do not reside on my personal homepage, I realize that the user page on YouTube is mine, but how else could I upload videos to be publicly available?

If I were linking to a personal page, I might understand, but YouTube is for everyone. It would be the same as if I had uploaded it to Archive.org and lent a CC license to it and then linked it. It would still be on a third party website.

It is well within the EL guidlines "Linking to user-submitted video sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content."

Additionally, you left links to airliners.net which is a third party website with user generated content, like YouTube. I think you've taken the admin editing a little far. I had links to 2 videos out of the 75 that I have for Kai Tak. Hardly, personal promotion. They were of the two things people associate specifically with the Hong Kong Kai Tak airport, the checkerboard approach and the low planes over Kowloon.

Where do you suggest that videos of a now closed airport should go? I either specifically filmed the video (origin of copyright) or have a collection of open source and Creative Commons Share Alike aviation videos. Again, YouTube is a third party website.

Excerpt showing the links you left and the two you deleted.

An account by a Kai Tak Air Traffic Controller - Phil Parker
Pictures from Kai Tak: Airliners.net - Jetphotos.net
Cockpit video of landing at Kai Tak on YouTube
Video of planes landing at Kai Tak on YouTube

Please explain, thanks. airboyd (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While YouTube is not a personal website... you've continually added external links to personal YT page/videos. That's to be avoided per WP:SPAMMER's provisions for self-promotion. If you feel your videos are worthwhile additions to articles, you should be bringing up discussion on a talk page to see what if other editors A)think it's a valuable addition and B)if it's not deemed to be self-promotion for your own videos. Thanks.

N.B... and don't get me started on the potential Wikipedia:ELNEVER issues...because we never link to any (YouTube) videos that are not hosted by the original rights holder.... --Madchester (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow your instructions for the talk page. I was hoping you'd provide general answers to the questions I asked prior to escalating the discussion to the next step. Maybe I don't have the dispute resolution guidelines down well?

1. Why leave a link to a personal Geocities (defunct) site, but take down other links you identify as personal?

2. What is your criterion for deciding what personal page is adding (Geocites site with personal photos and anecdotes) and that which is detracting (2 YouTube videos)?

3. How would one add pertinent valuable video while maintaining copyright flow, if not through a "neutral" third-party video site?

4. How are personal photos on Airliners.net any different than personal videos on YouTube?

I agreed with you previously, that my YT page was a personal page (as opposed to airboyd.com, which is a personal page), but it would have to be somewhat personal in nature to satisfy the copyright demands that you, quite rightly, state have to be met. The links were to specific videos and not to my personal "channel." I have contributed 700+ , mostly open source and CC-BY-SA, videos on YouTube, I have less than 5 linked from the entire Wikipedia. I'd call self-promtion or spam-linking a bit of a stretch?

Checking my stats, Wikipedia is responsible for 000.03% of the 3,000,000+ combined views on the specific videos linked to the article out of more than 36,000,000 total views of all of my videos. What would I have to gain from less than 1500 clicks from here? Where is the self-promotion? Where is my gain? I have been a contributor here as long as you have and turned down an admin request to help with the aviation pages. I have no need to be the most popular YouTuber, but was providing pertinent and specific video to the Kai Tak page. In regards to "worthwhile additions to articles," this is video that no one else has online anywhere and specifically shows, visually, what the article talks about and I can verify the copyright source. I actually worked at the airport during 1997-1998. An example of this is the IGS Checkerboard Approach. I linked an actual video of it. It's very difficult to visualize using the included text "...Upon reaching a small hill marked with a checkerboard in red and white, used as a visual reference point on the final approach, the pilot needed to make a 47° visual right turn to line up with the runway and complete the final leg..." unless you had actually been there and seen it yourself.

It seems to me that having a video showing what the actual text from the article is describing is exactly what an internet encyclopedia should do. No?

Thanks for your time, airboyd (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]