User talk:Jemstone66

Welcome!

Hello, Jemstone66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 09:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Slater[edit]

Hi Jemstone66, thanks for expanding the article on Nigel Slater!

I'm pretty sure the editor of OFM is now Nicola Jeal. I've reverted that small bit, but otherwise thanks very much again for the contributions.

John Peel[edit]

The BBC Radio bio had it as Rod Stewart ! I checked with some producers at BBC just now who worked with John and they agreed the best man at Peel's wedding was John Walters, although the Faces were there.

Here is the seemingly incorrect BBC Radio 1 article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/johnpeel/images/pdfs/John_Peel_Biography.pdf

And here's another article contradicting it, saying, the real case, that John Walters was the best man, sent to me from a friend at the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1466346.stm

Thanks for the correction. -- Wikiklrsc 18:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NMEC81.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NMEC81.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC publicity images[edit]

Would it be possible for the BBC to formally release all publicity images as "Copyright Attribution"? It states that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."

I don't know how much influence you have on the publicity department, but if we could get formal release on the photos, we could archive them on Wikimedia Commons and use them more regularly on the Wikimedia websites. (BTW, I'm a member of the Communications Committee, as is David, who you contacted.) -- Zanimum 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twee pop[edit]

I've (hopefully) answered your question on Talk:Twee pop - as a survivor of the early 90s scene I can assure you the phrase was most definitely in use. The very long article on the Twee pop scene from Pitchfork might be of interest. - Iridescent 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Pitchfork is actually called: "The story of Indie pop" and says: " They have their own names for themselves (popkids, popgeeks) and for the music they listen to (p!o!p, twee, anorak, C-86). They have their own canon of legendary bands (Tiger Trap, Talulah Gosh, Rocketship) and legendary labels (Sarah, Bus Stop, Summershine). They have their own pop stars, with who they're mostly on a first-name basis: Stephen and Aggi, Cathy and Amelia, Jen and Rose, Bret and Heather and Calvin. They've had their own zines (Chickfactor), websites (twee.net), mailing lists (the Indie pop List), aesthetics (like being TWEE AS FUCK), festivals (the International Pop Underground), iconography (hand drawings of kittens), fashion accessories (barrettes, cardigans, t-shirts with kittens on them, and t-shirts reading TWEE AS FUCK), and in-jokes (Tullycraft songs and the aforementioned TWEE AS FUCK)-- in short, their own culture."

ie: So there is a culture called Indie Pop and different ways of describing the music, arguments about its leading lights, different views in the US and the UK, and an underground culture but basically saying there is something called indie pop and sometimes people refer to its bands, movements as "twee" or "c86" or anorak.

i'm not saying that people didn't refer to talualah gosh as twee pop at some point but a) more in the US and b) more using the phrase "twee" rather than "twee pop". but as the articles for twee pop and indie pop currently stand there is no distinction between the two in what they describe and thus they should be merged. you can have an article that as the pitchfork article does quite neatly that says indie pop is a thing that over the years has had various informal and formal nomenclature amongst its fans. If there should be 2 articles then they should at least be cleaned up a bit. there's hardly anything in the history of "twee pop" thats different to the history of "indie pop" at the moment. and whereas the "indie pop" article has dozens of sources the twee pop article has 1. the pitchfork article ````

I'm not citing the pitckfork article as evidence, for precisely the reasons you mention above. However a Google search[1] reveals a quarter of a million hits on the phrase "twee pop" (including over 20000 from the UK alone[2]) which I would argue means the phrase is still in common enough circulation to warrant its own entry. Whether Dan Treacey, Amelia Fletcher et al used the phrase themselves is a moot point (although I've a photo of Peter Momtchiloff in a 'Twee as fuck' t-shirt in the early 90s) as long as the phrase is in use now. Back in the days, the phrase was 'shambling pop' (coined I believe by John Peel, & used on the 'Backwash' sleeve notes etc) rather than 'twee pop' , but this term has no real use in this context now - anyone mentioning "shambling pop" now would likely picture Pete Docherty rather than Talulah Gosh).

I think a merge would be a problem - merging it to punk would just be ridiculous, while moving it to indie (or even "80s indie") would a) subsume a fairly distinctive sub-scene into a very rambling article covering everything from the Raincoats to Robyn Hitchcock by way of the Smiths, and b) set a precedent for merging other indie genres from the time (shoegazing, post-punk etc) into a single article, which would become so long and incoherent as to be useless. 150 pages currently link to twee pop[3] so the stand-alone page is presumably getting a reasonable amount of traffic.

I do agree that the page as it stands is a mess and needs a major cleanup & complete rewrite, as do the entries for most of the bands (see comments on Talk:Amelia Fletcher, but I don't think that in itself is valid grounds to get rid of it. At some point I'd like to wipe this article down to the bare bones and recreate it in the same sort of style as the current shoegazing article but with decent sources, citations & photographs. - Iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:10067.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:10067.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:10067.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:10067.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bbc.co.uk[edit]

I have posted a couple of messages that may interest you at Talk:Bbc.co.uk. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked your material for the article. I hope you are not too disillusioned by the wiki experience.

You said you knew of sources. If you would like to write footnotes yourself, read WP:FOOTNOTES, and, if stuck, ask at WP:HELP. Otherwise you could post the URLs or citations of paper publications for others at Talk:Bbc.co.uk.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Landfill Indie[edit]

A tag has been placed on Landfill Indie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Landfill Indie[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Landfill Indie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ravenswing 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NMEC86.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NMEC86.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Jim Hawkins[edit]

Hello Jemstone66, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jim Hawkins has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(indicates awards; if you think they;re not sufficient, take to AfD.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]