User talk:Permafrost46/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent Edit

Hello. I know my edit to Limp Bizkit's Significant Other was recently reverted by you. I just do not know why-it doesn't seem wrong; as I've seen Wiki album pages put the band name next to featured artists. Is there something wrong with what I did? I did not mean to cause trouble.

I'm just wondering why I wasn't allowed to do that.

65.185.86.64 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It do not think your edit was wrong. In my opinion, it just did not seem to improve the article and it did not help for readability. This is why I reverted your edit with the summary "list bloating". A track listing example can be found on the manual of style at MOS:ALBUM#Track listing and it contains guest musicians, but not the band for which they are best known. Here is another example where band names do not appear next to guest artists Slash_(album)#Track_listing. Can you provide an example of a page where band names appear next to guest artists?

Once again, you did not do anything forbidden, but it was my opinion that your edit did not improve the article and therefore I reverted your bold edit per WP:BRD (I recommend you read this page). You are free to disagree and you did the right thing by taking it to my talk page, although the article talk page could have been a good venue too. Thanks! Permafrost46 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Take tracks one and seven of The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell, Volume 1 by Five Finger Death Punch. I guess Judas Priest next to Rob Halford wasn't always true, but it is now. 65.185.86.64 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite your counter-example (which is a minor article), I still think the band names should not appear. For all we know, Scott Weiland could leave Stone Temple Pilots next week and the info would be out of date (as you pointed out, Rob Halford left Judas Priest for a while). This would be the case in many articles if we add the respective bands of guest artists to every single Wikipedia article. However, the fact that these individuals, have been guests will not change regardless of their band affiliations. The page you edited is about a Limp Bizkit album, not every other band Scott Weiland has played in in his career. Thanks! Permafrost46 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You provide another good point, I suppose you're right. I meant that you were right from that last post, just saying that there are those around here. But I agree, and I see where you're going with this. Thank you. Can we call this resolved now? 65.185.86.64 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say so. Happy editing! Permafrost46 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Knockout Ned (Mane Galinha) 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:

• REDIRECT [[City_of_God_(2002_film)#Cast] {{R from title without diacritics}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blackwater Park

Hi, the move I made I am quite happy to see undone using a technical request. I believe in good faith the original meaning of Blackwater Park is the primary topic, but quite happy to see the album restored as primary topic. If you use Wikipedia:RM#Uncontroversial_technical_requests, or I will do it myself. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think changing Blackwater Park to redirect to Blackwater Park (album) did the trick, thank you! Permafrost46 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dierry Jean (January 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dierry Jean.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Open access

"statement reflects a very minority viewpoint" ... not quite as small a minority as the vociferous and often -- sadly -- disingenuous supporters of open access would like the rest of the world to believe. Given that the sentence I originally added seems to be the only critical voice in the article -- amounting to less than 0.5% of the whole in terms of word count -- the strength of that minority still seems to be underrepresented. One might legitimately ask whether the article as a whole has a truly neutral point of view. Ankababel (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me being or not being a supporter of Open Access. You should not re-add content to an article after it has been reverted multiple times by other editors. I recommend you follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and take it to the article talk page (here) to establish consensus. I have reverted your edit again but if you insist on adding this information, I recommend you use a more impartial tone. Wikipedia describes disputes, it does not engage in disputes. Again, take it to the article talk page if you wish to continue this discussion. Permafrost46 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be accurate. "You should not re-add content to an article after it has been reverted multiple times by other editors" -- the new content was originally placed in another section, and at the suggestion of Lawsonstu was, in modified form, placed in a more appropriate section, where it seemed to be acceptable.Ankababel (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Both edits added almost the same text word-for-word, and putting it in another section did not change the fact that it used a controversial tone. Thus, I reverted it again. This discussion now belongs to the article talk page. Permafrost46 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dierry Jean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox (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) 09:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Permafrost46, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Avenged Sevenfold Genre

Avenged sevenfold is a heavy metal and previously a metal core band. All of their albums are metal core or heavy metal and none are rock. So please let the genre be heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohansamudra3 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to change or add content, you have to follow the verifiability policy. It is also required to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree with your edits (which in this case are not sourced), it is suggested that you seek consensus on the article's talk page, which can be found here. Thank you! Permafrost46 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dierry Jean

Hello Permafrost46. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Dierry Jean".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dierry Jean}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Permafrost46. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kraftwerk

Hi you recently reverted my edit on the kraftwerk album page. All pages regardless of the subject have to meet WP:GNG and music pages have to meet WP:NMUSIC. Just being a kraftwerk album does not make it automatically notable. Please read WP:NALBUM and ask yourself which of the criteria it fulfills and which of the sources back this up. It says clearly that an album requires it's own notability and that it has been released by a notable artist is not by itself a reason for a standalone article. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a detailed reply to back up my "revert".

1. There is a myriad of online news sources backing up the notability of The 3-D Catalogue: Just click this link and you will see that there are at least 3 pages of news articles from various independent sources covering the release of the album: https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=nws&q=kraftwerk+3-d+catalogue. This includes Rolling Stone magazine, but I'm sure I don't have to convince you of the notability of Rolling Stone magazine? Anyway, here is the relevant link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kraftwerk-announce-massive-3-d-the-catalogue-live-box-set-w478106

2. Considering point 1 of my reply, it is clear that this album 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.' Here, I am using the definition of the word 'multiple' as meaning 'more than one'.

3. Considering point 2 of my reply, it is actually a criteria of WP:NALBUM.

4. If there are any other concerns, please feel free to reply. Permafrost46 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

At the time of my tagging it there were no sources to back up the notability. So the explanation that should have been used was "the sources needed have now been added" and not "clearly a kraftwerk album is notable". Add the sources and remove the prod is the way forward. The article creator should have done that first. As a new pages reviewer I do not always have the time to correct the shoddy work of each and every editor and so I prod them sometimes and that usually gives them the wake-up call needed. And sometimes they are just editors who presume that because the band is well known the article doesn't need to be correctly sourced. Hope you now understand what I am getting at. Domdeparis (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Domdeparis (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be more careful in my edit summaries next time! Permafrost46 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that but to be perfectly honest it's more the method when you WP:DEPROD something that is important. It's OK to deprod articles without doing anything to the article but that could open up another deletion nomination. I wrote that the album fails WP:NALBUM and there was a tag that the article needs extra sources for verification. I agree with you it would be logical to presume that any Kraftwerk album would be notable but this is not how WP works, WP:verifiability is essentiel to any article. New pages review is a thankless task sometimes but essentiel, there are nearly 22k unreviewed pages and tagging and prodding is important to get quality up to scratch. It would be great if you would consider improving any article that you decide to deprod in the future by addressing the concerns that the nominator expressed and I will also make sure my comments are clearer, I think if I had written "fails NALBUM because there are not enough sources to prove notability" this would have put you on the right track I think. happy editing Domdeparis (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I added a reference to the article. Permafrost46 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)