User talk:KremBrule

AlefBase

Replying to your request for comments: it's always helpful to include something about the reception of a work. See for instance Master of Puppets#Reception and legacy. Of course, it's hard to speak of legacy just yet for a much newer album. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KremBrule (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KremBrule! Thank you for your contributions. I am Have mörser, will travel and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of AlefBase

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on AlefBase requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I had tagged your article to note that it needed improvement only. An administrator has since tagged it for speedy delete (this is a process with little review, for cases where deletion should be obvious). I removed all tags, as I think it is obvious that if someone wanted to delete it, it should go under AFD, a more formal review, as you have provided a number of reasonable references in the article. Not sure why the admin flagged it, except that the band themselves do not have an article, which is often an indicator that the album isn't notable, but not a valid reason by itself. The album itself seems to have gotten enough press to be notable, even if the band wasn't. Put another way, the album may not have passed the guideline about notability/music (WP:MUSIC) depending on how your read it, but it passes the general guideline about notability (WP:GNG), which means it passes the criteria. If this confuses you, you are not alone, I've been here 5 years with 12,000 edits and the guidelines here still confuse the hell of me on a regular basis, but they do work quite well. Usually. If you are familiar with the band, starting that article (usually in your user space to begin with) might be a good idea. And continuing to improve the album article with more references when found, well that is always a good idea. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx a lot, Dennis!KremBrule (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Just remember, I'm sure that the admin that marked for speedy delete did it in good faith, I just think he is mistaken in this instance. (I've seen him around here for years, he's a good guy). Assuming good faith when someone tags an article, and keeping a civil tone is one of the important things we do around here, to keep the discussions open and honest. It's one of the reasons I like Wikipedia. Most of the time, it works well. This is why we have the multiple steps for deletion and such, to catch errors. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand :) KremBrule (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krem,

I marked this for speedy deletion based mainly on the fact that there is no article for the artist, which is usually an indication that a recording is not notable. On balance, I agree with Dennis that this article is referenced well enough that it is not eligable for WP:CSD A9 speedy deletion, but am unsure if the quality of references are such that it would survive WP:AFD (I've seen similar articles go either way).

An article on Gevolt would certainly strengthen the case for its inclusion. Have a look at notability criteria for bands at WP:MUS. It should be a formality for a reasonably serious recording band to satisfy at least one of these criteria. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the quality of references: do you mean sources or content? KremBrule (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And having just listened to a few Gevolt tunes on youtube, I would be surprised if they didn't satisfy a number of the criteria. Good luck. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Catfish, and thank you to. KremBrule (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Actually, I have learned very much from this (my first) experience in Wiki:) KremBrule (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I highly recommend working on existing articles that cover topics you are familiar with to start. (nothing wrong with creating new, but it is harder for a newbie). This will help you learn the basic wiki-markup, and get a feeling for the overall tone, as well as help you learn what is likely to be acceptable, and what is likely to get tagged to delete. Checking out Articles for deletion every now and then, and looking at what is on the list, and the arguments being used, will also help. I qualify that with the reality that half the arguments used in AFD discussions are not valid arguments. But moving around the place a bit, and helping out where you are strongest, this is a good way to get up to speed so you don't feel so out of place in situations like this. Leave me a note on my talk page if you need some other help. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanx, DennisKremBrule (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish, there was some redirects to this article (Alef Base and Alefbase) that you deleted. Can you make some undo or I have to create 'em one more time or maybe them was wrong-done?KremBrule (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos in Flesh

References You are correct that this page no longer is susceptible to link rot, but now it's entirely unsourced (which is really okay, since the only source that was used before is discouraged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koav, now its soursed :) KremBrule (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources It's good that you've found a source for some information in the article and I can tell that you're learning rapidly about how Wikipedia works, but is this what qualifies as a reliable source? Sources have to be high-quality and professional. A lot of Internet sources are self-published so they are generally not acceptable. This one might be--I honestly don't know. Also, you don't have sources for the claims that you actually make in the article. For instance, you have written that this EP was only given away on tour and isn't available for sale--how did you find out this information? Can you source those claims? You may want to take a look at WP:ALBUM to see how Wikipedia has generally understood writing good album articles and feel free to ask me for any more pointers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC):*[reply]
- I never wrote that this EP was only given away on tour and isn't available for sale. I Just removed the link that was not actual. But other things, that you say are right, I understand them well and agree. ThanxKremBrule (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AlefBase for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AlefBase is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlefBase until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Renata (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Gevolt at Folk-Fest Israel, Nov 2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gevolt at Folk-Fest Israel, Nov 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to Tim Slovin via Facebook. 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]