User talk:Agendapedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Agendapedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Eagle-Eye Cherry seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Secrets (The Human League album) 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agendapedia, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Agendapedia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV[edit]

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. I just wanted to make sure you were up on Wikipedia's policy on presenting things in a neutral manner. A number of your edits have violated it pretty badly, and as such, were removed pretty quickly by other editors. If you want your additions to stick, you need to change how you're wording things.

For instance, twice you tried to add to Nickelbacks article, calling their album average scores "abysmal" and then again "lackluster". I'm not arguing whether or not those are bad scores, but my point is, it violates NPOV when you add your personal commentary in there like that. If its quoted by a reliable source, it could be said, but it can't be your personal conclusion.

At another song article, you wrote "The song was a cataclysmic disaster, failing to chart in the U.S, the U.K. or even their native Canada." Again, while you can point out that it failed to chart, you can't add your personal judgments of it being a "cataclysmic disaster".

Also, one other pointer: If you do hope to constructively contribute to the project, you may want to think about changing your name. "Agendapedia" really sounds like you have an agenda, and are purposely out to violate our policies on neutrality. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just saying its easy to jump to that conclusion. People are going to be quick to doubt your intentions, and it'll draw attention to yourself. (Kind of like driving a red convertible on the highway attracts cops, you know?)

Hopefully this makes sense. Feel free to ask further questions if you have any. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointer. Review boxes either use a number score (8/10), or a simple, standardized summary of "favorable", "mixed", or "unfavorable". Its not a place to add your commentary of how good/bad the review was. That part is detailed in the paragraph of the reception section. Please stop changing this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're still doing this. Stating that an album got one star is more insightful to the reader than saying that in your opinion a reviewer "derided" it. Wikipedia should stick to a formal tone, and shouldn't use emotive language outside of direct quotations: this edit about an album being "savaged" is okay in content, but needs scare quotes around the term to show that we're quoting a metareview rather than summarising something in Wikipedia's voice. --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Eoghan Quigg (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Don Black, Matthew Fletcher and Charles Simpson

List of music considered the worst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metro (newspaper)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Jedward, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the warning but the edit was certainly not an attempt to mislead and stamp my own opinion. It is impossible to find one cite which gives a general overall critical desecration for Planet Jedward. It is common knowledge that their album was released to near unanimous censure; however since Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? don't waste effort collating data for such deplorable music, and moreover, it would be inappropriate to add 10 citations for every scathing review they received, I will let them off the hook. They're making shit loads of money and that's what it boils down to. So I applaud their achievements. Agendapedia (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not for Wikipedia to announce that something is "impossible" just because one editor reckoned it was. If no reliable source has cared enough to summarise an album's critical reception, Wikipedia shouldn't bother either. --McGeddon (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Secrets (The Human League album) 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:

Out this week - Albums|publisher=''[[Daily Mirror|The Mirror]]'' Archived at [The Free Library]]|last=Martin|first=Gavin|date=3 August 2001|accessdate=21 June 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue Something at List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

Please don't keep adding DBS to that list. The criteria for the list is clearly stated at the top of the page, in the introduction: "This is a list of artists who have achieved one number 1 hit on the UK Singles Chart and no other entry whatsoever on the chart. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles uses this definition of "one-hit wonder" "

In the UK, DBS had a second hit, Josey, which reached number 27 in the UK chart, therefore they clearly don't meet the criteria for that list. Valenciano (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I get the idea, I will not add it again, but I will argue that the definition Wikipedia uses is ridiculous. Who cares if it becomes a haven for OR, as long there are citations from reliable sources, it should become a collaborative effort to actually include proper one-hit-wonders such as Deep Blue Something. I have seen them referred to all over music sites as one-hit-wonders, they are one-hit-wonders. So are New Radicals, they had a number 5 hit in the UK, then nothing else, just because it didn't get to number one does not mean it isn't a one-hit-wonder. Yet again most normal people consider them to be quintessential one-hit-wonders; hours of radio play, popular lyrics which gave them media attention, then swiftly propelled into oblivion where nothing was heard from them ever again. If you seriously consider Lou Bega not to be a one-hit-wonder then in my opinion, John Paul Larkin is greater than the Beatles. I hope you do think he's a one-hit-wonder because he's just been added to the list. Agendapedia (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is more than one criteria for judging one hit wonders. The criteria Wikipedia uses is "no other entry whatsoever on the chart" which automatically excludes Lou Bega, who had a second chart entry at no. 55. There are a lot of other artists in the same boat: Nena, Nicole, Goombay Dance Band, Renée and Renato, and Aneka to name just five from the 80s alone, who had a number one and then only one other charting single outside the top 40. The advantage though of Wikipedia's criteria is that it does prevent WP:OR, but more importantly, keeps the list to a manageable length, as well as being the criteria used by The Guinness Book of Hit Singles. Any attempt to change that should be made on the talk page of the article. Valenciano (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tell Me When, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascination (song) (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) 11:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Note that while you added a "source", the info you're adding to the article is not in the source you're citing. Just because you tack on a citation, doesn't mean it's relevant or even reliable for the info you're posting. This seems to be a pattern with your editing that needs to stop immediately. Yankees76 ^Talk 14:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees, it is called paraphrasing, the same thing which I am force-fed at university to prevent me from being sent to the principal for a telling off. I wrote the following:

The album was met with little interest despite its relatively modest chart position of no. 6, following the success of "Spaceman", the band were largely forgotten

The cite says:

However, the huge success of "Spaceman" turned Babylon Zoo into of the biggest one-hit wonders. When Babylon Zoo released an album, 1996's The Boy With the X-Ray Eyes, there was disappointingly mild interest; it was a flop, and Babylon Zoo became largely forgotten.

I will not start an edit war as I have better things to do, but it's clear you just don't like it for some reason.

That text is not in the link you cited [1]. I'm not looking for an edit war, I'm just getting tired of constantly correcting your errors and the errors of your meatpuppets, and removing your NPOV and tabloid journalism from encyclopedia articles. Yankees76 ^Talk 15:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes, that's why there are erasers on pencils. Lenny Leonard This was meant to be the cite just to prove I wasn't completely mad.[2] Agendapedia (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where do you get "modest chart position of no. 6" from that? Is that All Music Guide's opinion or your own? Yankees76 ^Talk 15:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's paraphrasing what the cite reads. I don't just copy and paste a whole paragraph and insert it into an article. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the wording "modest chart position", obviously you do as you seem to take it personal anytime the Zoo are edited in a manner you don't agree with. The Babylon Zoo article was a mess before I touched it. Now, it looks like a well referenced and readable article. What is clear is that I actually work hard finding sources in the webs' archives. Sometimes it is difficult to find sources for Babylon Zoo as there is a dearth of any real positive coverage of the band, particularly in the States. To outside observers, the Zoo were a one-hit-wonder band who vanished after "Spaceman". If I was to say the Human League disappeared of the radar after "Don't You Want Me" that would be blatant original research. To the casual observer, however, Babylon Zoo followed in the same footsteps as Glasgow Zoo, a distant nostalgic memory. Agendapedia (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But again, it's your opionion, not AMG's that #6 is a modest chart opionion. It's not Wikipedia's place to determine what is "modest", or what is a "cataclysmic disaster" [3], it's only our job to reflect what reliable sources say. This isn't one of the tabloid British newspapers you so often cite. We only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

And this really doesn't have anything to do with Babylon Zoo. They were never popular where I'm from, but you don't have to like the subject of an article on Wikipedia to correct edits that are POV pushing or completely inaccurate (or conversely to add material that improves the project). One can look at your contributions and follow you around all day on numerous band or singers articles without liking or knowing about any of them (and there are more when you edit from 4 accounts). Someone could be going around claiming all of these bands were massively influential superstars with lasting legacies and I would edit their material with the same prejudice. Yankees76 ^Talk 17:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (again), source set up...[edit]

Indeed, you guys have gotten better, and are using sources now, its just that your set up still needs a little tweaking.

For instance, in this edit, you make the claim which was clearly a mechanism to boost sales. Even if a source is supporting this, to make such a bold claim, you need to have the right context. Something more along the lines of which was something Nicola Sloan of More Than the Music felt was a mechanism to boost sales. Unless you've got official word from the artist, you can't make the general claim like that.
Additionally, as I've said before, as long as your user name is "Agendapedia" and almost all of your edits are centered around adding negative commentary to articles, people are going to accuse you guys of "POV pushing". You're little group is still being rather blatant if people bother to pay attention... Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid using the Nicola Sloan source for this altogether. Per WP:OR, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. A passing comment by a blogger (one who admits in the blog entry was 6 years old when the song was released, and prior to writing the blog entry had to look the song up on Youtube to figure out who the band was) is not really a reliable source for a statment of fact in an encyclopedia. I would look for sources that specifically discuss the intent of the band or the label decision to remix the single version of the song.

This is my major issue with edits from "Agendapedia", "Peter Somerville" and two a lesser extent to the two other accounts used by this group of individuals: in the face of numerous reliable sources for music both online and in print, they prefer tabloids and other WP:PUS fringe sources as sources for their POV edits. Yankees76 ^Talk 16:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A9 and uncharted singles[edit]

Three of your CSDs for Maybe Someday (The Ordinary Boys song), Act of Sorrow, and Beneath a Burning Sky have been declined because they do not qualify for speedy deletion. Being an uncharted single does not make the article qualify for CSD A9. What makes an article about a musical recording qualify for deletion under CSD A9 is that the artist's article does not exist. The artist's article exists for these songs, therefore they do not qualify for speedy deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion for these articles, I recommend that you follow the Articles for Deletion process. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]