User talk:Michig/Archive6

Tin Can Alley

I have withdrawed the nomination because of your comment. Schuym1 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Happy new year.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Notsensibles -- very nice

Hey there! I was doing New Page Patrol and I saw your article on Notsensibles -- this was wonderful, an article about a band that was properly referenced and well-written! Most new band articles are a bit out-of-tune, but yours hit the mark wonderfully. I enjoyed reading it a lot -- keep up the great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Barnstar

I don't have to really explain why you're getting this—you know why you're getting this. It seems that rescuing articles may even be your raison d'etre here on Wikipedia. I can't say that I agree with all of the choices you make, but you play a valuable role in building this encyclopedia.Un school 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I do hereby award the Rescue Barnstar to Michig, not only for the hard work and dedication he demonstrates in digging up sources to save articles from deletion, but also for his sense of evenhandedness. Michig is not a wild-eyed Inclusionist, but rather is a fair broker at AfD for all music-related articles (and more than a few others as well) who just happens to improve most everything he touches. Rock on, Michig. Un school 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much - it's nice to be appreciated. Happy new year.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. HNY2U, also. Un school 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-Irie

In your edit summary de-prodding D-Irie, you mentioned that the rapper had a hit single in German. I don't read German, but I scanned hundreds of search results and found no evidence for that. Can you please point me in the right direction? Tx, Bongo matic 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. However, "hit" usually connotes top-40, which 49 isn't. Bongo matic 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Radio (Scotland)

Hi there. You have reverted abusive edits on this page yourself and I merely contact you to highlight the extent of the vandalism taking place. Many edits, referring to DJ Paul Carlin, have been made. Some of these vandals have even made up offensive, Paul Carlin related usernames. These users are undoubtedly relentless with their editing. I ask for protection of this article due to the repeated introduction of false information. Thank you for reading this message. Screaming Treeman (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years of Refusal

Years of Refusal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please be mindful that you are skirting the limits of the three-revert rule at this article. There is an expectation that editors in an editing dispute will outline the rationale for their preferred version at the article's talk page. Reverting without doing so is often regarded poorly and I have already blocked one user for edit warring. It would thus be helpful if you could outline your arguments on the discussion page. CIreland (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted, along with another editor, the edits of a disruptive and abusive editor, who has repeatedly removed a sourced and hence verifiable review with an unverifiable one. Given that this editor has placed on their talk page the message "I don't care what any of you have to say...so don't bother", and has reverted with an edit summary of "fuck you", your request to engage in discussion on the talk page is not one that I am going to take up with this particular editor. If any other editors wish to engage in discussion on this topic I will be more than happy to do so.--Michig (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crass

I swear it was 1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Guy Robinson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Jackson

Hi

~~Could you explain this edit? The categories removed (that you replaced) are redundant as noted in the edit summary. "Scottish singers" is a parent-cat of "Scottish pop singers", for example.~~

~~Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Oops, sorry about that - I reverted the wrong reversion... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE GLITTER BAND

Hey, many thanks for sorting the page out it now reflects the correct history and the two bands, one band keeps trying to use the page for their own promotional gain and you have stopped that thanks.{{Mark Wall www.glitterband.com|94.192.182.242}}

Unknown Pleasures

It may interest you to know that me and a few other editors are working on a revamp of the article here, if there's anything you want to add. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're been working very slowly in the past, and having it in a userspace allows us to let bits of rough prose and random quotes sit there without us feeling embarassed about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's just the one, although I know my friend User:Ceoil has been wanting to work on Closer for forever. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of ridiculous prose in the Stone Roses article. Go ahead and feel free to take out anything that looks horrid. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to do some major rewriting, use one of our Featured Articles as a model, particularly The Smashing Pumpkins, R.E.M., and Radiohead. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explains some of the early pictures I've seen of them. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite page numbers from the books you reference. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:ModernEnglish.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:ModernEnglish.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully now sorted out.--Michig (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do sometimes even you get amazed by what gets put in Wikipedia?

As a frequent editor I am sure that you see the whole gambit of odd wiki edits, but that last edit by a random IP that you reverted on the reggae page entitled "Bob the Swimmer" was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen written in the English language.--Migglesworth (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just random vandalism I think. Can't say I spent a lot of time reading it.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite creative as vandalism goes, though.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]