User talk:Woovee - Knowledge (XXG)

1003:" in the USA, where as 1) it was just a "a radio hit on alternative modern rock radios" !! and 2) not a hit at all in terms of commercial success as "Song2" never cracked the Hot 100 that is the only Billboard chart that includes "units sold" and "singles sales". " Billboard modern rock tracks" indeed is a list that mentions only the 40 most-played songs on alternative rock radios which is a very special sub-format. More important, this billboard isn't based from "units sold and single sales" at all. Clearly, this article should have never been rated GA because it mis-interpreted sources, and presents facts in a fallacious way. It's clearly original research that presenting "Song2" as "a hit". As an adminisrator who passed this GA and who didn't see this problem because you assumed, sources had been used following the wiki guidelines of neutrality, sticktosource and nooriginalresearch, you were abused in a certain way too. As a reader who knew Blur's history, and their cult status in the USA, they just had a album certified gold in 1997, I was baffled by the presentation of "song2" as a hit. It is also perverse because european people don't know exactly what is the Billboard alternative songs, and what is the Hot 100 (which is the equivalent of the uk singles chart if you prefer). Thank you for replying so quickly. - 1817:, Simon Reynolds only refers to TBP as "proto-goth" (along with Bauhaus and The Banshees), as in it influenced the scene that followed. At what point does he describe TBP's "highly gothic, challenging lyrics" (which you highlight before anything else, giving the reader the impression that the band's fame rests on its literary qualities and not its sound, image, live shows...), or its "violent live sound influenced by punk rock and blues" (what does "live sound" even mean here? And is it not redundant to say that a post-punk band is influenced by punk rock?) The "Prince of Darkness" name occurs again and again in reviews and interviews, and packs a lot more punch than "the grand lord of gothic lushness". There is no doubt that elements of Cave's music have been described as gothic, and that he has influenced bands associated with the goth rock genre, but I think it's misleading to lump him into some kind of scene, which is what you appear to be doing. I suggest you read 4686:, and I want to clarify why I support this minor change. The change we were discussing makes the sentence mean completely different things: "The F Club night in Leeds... became instrumental to the development of the goth subculture in North England in the 1980s" means it was only instrumental to goth in the north, not anywhere else; "The F Club night in Leeds in northern England... became instrumental to the development of the goth subculture in the 1980s" is saying where Leeds is, like you said that sentence was supposed to mean. If it is, as you said, supposed to clarify where Leeds is, it should be the second option, because the first option doesn't say what you said it was supposed to mean. Also, none of the sources cited mention it being influential to goth specifically in the north, they all talk about it influencing the subculture as a whole. So, your change makes it inaccurate and so doesn't fit 4663:

his favourite Cure record (I've been unable to with a cursory google search)? While it's not unnusual for musical artists to cite their latest album at the time as being their favourite, the source I used was last updated in 2008 after 4:13 Dream had been released, and he does not acknowledge either that nor 2004's self-titled as being his favourite, and instead explicitly cites Bloodflowers. If he had cited the 2008 album as his favourite, it would be reasonable for us to assume that in, the absence of any other later quotation, that his favourite would change with each new subsequent album, but since he didn't cite his newest at that time as his favourite, unless we can find him changing his mind in a later interview, I think it is reasonable to the Bloodflowers quote there. Cheers.

5263:) and input a statement in the article that "As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band." It was Woovee's stated view that the possible validity of such reunion bands was a fringe/minority viewpoint underserving of coverage. I tagged Woovee's statement for CN and recently added a neutrality disputed tag and input an IMHO even-handedly worded reason in both tags relating to the controversies relating to such projects. Woovee deleted the tags, stating that the reasoning given amounted to "introducing opinions" into the article in contravention of 5687:(I am striving to make this point in a manner compliant with number 3 of the Rules.) However, we do both come from the same side of the discussion, so perhaps that is unsurprising. I would advocate turning the "ultimately ended" statement into a line saying the band disbanded rather than simply deleting the sentence The remainder of that paragraph is a very good section about the post band careers of T.Rex sidemen 1967-1973 and should be kept unchanged and unaffected by this edit. I would suggest that a second paragraph then be added to this section condensing the old Attempts At Reforming section down to bare bones. 890:. These additions are not worded very well and do not really improve the articles... in fact they are quite muddled and confusing. There's no need to focus on 1990's policies for the charts, nor add clipped screenshots from Google books, and the part about "three types of Hot 100" is inaccurate/doesn't make sense. The component charts are already mentioned in the main Hot 100 article, and they also have their own spin-off pages. If you're going to add large sections to these or change around the intro sections, please discuss on the Talk Page(s) first. Thanks! - 1871:"You have to include the gothic adjective in the description of TBP" This is the lead for the Nick Cave article, not TBP. If you're going to emphasise the gothic connection then it opens the door to a variety of other labels bestowed upon them by critics over the years, from blues punk to aforementioned noise rock. Those two would be more legitimate given they have Knowledge (XXG) articles. Keep it simple and stick to the all-encompassing post-punk. I have agreed to the 6023:, by saying artist before 1977 weren't post-punk, however the article already states that, it was not instated in the edit you reverted. Seeing as your problem is with the inclusion of artists like Suicide and Television being called post-punk, then your issue is with the contents of that section and you should delete those or move them to a "precursors" section, not make the article non-chronological. I hope this finds you well and you have a good day. 1163: 2798: 1917: 5634:. I suggest the following: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, music critic Mark Paytress states that Bolan’s death ended the band. However Billboard magazine states that “the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000." 4092: 2207: 2247: 3914: 5047: 5403:- There are two areas that need to be dealt with. The recent discussion has not been continuing long enough. So resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. Please notify them on their user talk pages. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Try to discuss the issue for at least 24 hours with at least two more posts from each editor. 5926: 4891: 4577: 3970: 3528: 3373: 3098: 4717: 608: 5071: 4282: 2958: 2777: 6044: 4227: 2699: 3931:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 5857: 2366: 1525: 1379: 1270: 1197: 565: 372: 23: 2334: 1035:

as a hit. What is true is that the "song2" single was played a lot on alternative modern rock radios, it peaked at n°6 in the modern rock radios. so it was only a radio alternative rock radio. The use of the word "hit" is to me not appropriate. I would say that it had heavy rotation on alternative radios.

5724:

Three editors are listed as participating in this discussion. Two of the editors are mostly in agreement, and one has not edited in ten days. I am putting moderated discussion on hold for maybe a week, during which time the two editors may edit the article and may discuss their edits either here or

3719:

As SilkTork only gave their opinion about the RSs, I agree to demand a third opinion to discuss some details as there are quite a few. Creating a section about the the nightclubs, the keyspaces that were important in the emergence of the goth subculture in the 1980s, would be the right thing to do in

2054:

for that article as the article would only be on the song itself, not on the history of the artist. If an artist uses an irregular pseudonym for a particular song or album, then we would give both the irregular pseudonym and the name by which they are better known, which may in itself be a pseudonym.

1034:

In the lead, it is said that "song 2" brought the band mainstream success in the states. This is not true: it was only the album that was certified gold in the USA, not that "song 2" single. Indeed, this single never entered the Hot 100 (the chart that include the sales): so how could it be presented

471:

has also been met with mixed reviews" and "The album has also received negative reviews". It's completely unnecessary to say that. Look at any other wikipedia article about an album that has a metacritic score in the 60s and you'll see that they never mention that the album has also received negative

4772:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

4468:

That the file has been on Commons for months does not mean it's acceptable to use here. Commons is not en.wikipedia. We are not responsible for their copyright errors, nor do we have to incorporate them here. Further, Commons is badly backlogged on all sorts of administrator requests. It is nearly a

2896:

are not referenced on Metacritic. Maybe it is because the UK Times' group doesn't allow it. Anyway, Diffuser.fm is not well famous to my opinion: I don't rate it as a good source like the ones I've added. In fact, I don't remember seeing it ever including in the rating infobox/reception section of a

2049:

If an artist is widely known under a pseudonym, their birth name would be mentioned in the main article on that person as that is part of the scope of that article, and is encyclopedic. In articles on that artists' work, we would tend to only use the pseudonym by which they are known, as their birth

2753:

Using a tool is such a plague on wikipedia because it makes longtime users waste a lot of time. Had you read the edits, you would have realized that these genres have been established by music historians for these albums for a long long time. Another point, one doesn't put any source in the infobox

1696:

at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." I

1691:

functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Knowledge (XXG) requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in

972:

I've just looked, and it appears you wish to make an edit. Just go and do it. If there's a problem with it, someone will make an adjustment, or enter a discussion with you. Be bold! Please be bold - that's how we make progress. If we entered into a discussion and got agreement for every minor edit,

4662:

Hello Woovee. You've said that Robert Smith has changed his mind often on his favourite Cure album. You're probably more well-read on the Cure than me so could you please, if possible, find an instance that's later to my source in which he explicitly identifies something other than Bloodflowers as

6055:

in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving,

5313:

The timing of this is not great for me as I am travelling and in the middle of a vacation, and it is difficult (and unpleasant) for me to concentrate on a dispute at this time. I thought we cleared up this matter some time ago, and was surprised it has resurfaced. Briefly, my position is that the

2344:

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to

2033:

As you are an administrator and you deal with articles about music, I wanted to ask you how a song has to be credited if the artist is known under a pseudonym. Let's take as instances songs by Dylan or Prince or Bowie: do they have to be credited as "Bob Dylan", "Prince", "David Bowie" or as "BoB

1649:

says that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given

5627:

1) Remove this sentence until or unless page numbers can be found in the Mark Paytress book for verification: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band.” As it stands, the latter part of the sentence after the

2857:

The review was clearly identified as an album review in the headline. It described songs that have not appeared as singles (in the penultimate paragraph). The date didn't faze me; several of the reviews mentioned on Metacritic are dated mid-August as well (Record Collector was first, 18 August).

1837:

TBP is first and foremost a post-punk band; proto-goth doesn't adequately sum up the band's output/legacy. How about this: "Prior to this, he fronted The Birthday Party, one of the most notorious and influential post-punk bands of the 1980s. ... Referred to as rock music's "Prince of Darkness",

1058:

I looked at the history and now see the situation. I agree with you. I was about to make the change, but note that it has already been done. There are now three editors who agree that "hit" means a record in the Billboard 100. Any further problems, please give me a ping. It helps if you explain

5369:

to a single source? NPOV states that "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Billboard magazine clearly states: "But in 1997, after band members received a rapturous reception at a public

3453:

in which you and your recent edits to the article (specifically those in which the above-named section was deleted) are cited. As you were tagged in the discussion, you should have received a notification about this, however I notice that you have made further edits to the article while not

5076:

Closed. Two of the editors have made edits to the article that the third editor, who edits intermittently, has not disagreed with because they have not been editing. There was a rough consensus for their edits. If any editor disagrees, they should discuss their disagreement first, before

5598:

Ideally I would like the "ultimately ended the band" sentence either taken out or replaced with something less definite along the lines of the band "deactivating" at the point of Bolan's death. Also a brief section (no more than a quick paragraph) on the subject of the two "revival" bands

5001:

In your absence the DRN thread has concluded with consensus between Netherzone and myself under moderator guidance to include a short paragraph about the "reunion" bands. As per the duscussion, should you disagree with our connsensus about - or should you choose to unilaterately revert or

3110:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5364:

I added the word "alegedly" to my statement above because it is not verifiable that Paytress actually made that claim at all; an extensive search of the book does not verify it. Even if it were found that Paytress made that statement, that is only one point of view. Would that not give

3385:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4731:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 410:

shows, web publications are not italicized. Metacritic's score is already discussed at length in the leading prose of the section, so the template would be redundant. Your removal of the table because it's too much to you is not a reason to remove it. Like in GA articles such as

5318:"ultimately end" when Marc Bolan died. That the opinion of the writer Mark Paytress, who alegedly made that statement, does not make it "true" as various other band members went on to develop at least two tribute/spinoff bands, X-T.Rex and Mickey Finn's T-Rex. I believe that 2911:

I agree the sources you added are more important, and it's not like we're short of reviews. Still, I thought I'd mention it. The DYK reviewer (I'm happy to share DYK credit as you added some key sources) is asking for a citation for the track listing; any suggestions?

1650:

article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I would appreciate it if you would not delete content sourced to a published book on the topic.

4104:

Gracias, cada día aprendo más. No volveré a usar a Scaruffi en mis ediciones. En realidad, soy latino y uso traductor para añadir información, espero poder seguirles apoyando en estos temas de los cuales conozco aunque no maneje perfectamente su idioma. Bendiciones.

445:

Also on the point of the ratings template, you did notice how I did not mention the rating given by the reviewers in prose? It will already be noted in the ratings template, so I avoided being redundant. The Metacritic field in the template is an optional parameter

5660:

Two editors have made statements as to what should be changed, and there seem to be two or so matters of agreement. Is there agreement to remove the sentence that ends in "ultimately ended the band"? Is there agreement to reinsert the section on revival bands?

5370:

performance to commemorate Bolan’s 1977 death, the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000."

1175:

For your efforts to bring neutrality and accuracy to Knowledge (XXG) articles. It can be difficult to break-through on some of our pages, especially when several "veteran" editors are protecting dubious content, but hang-in there; we need more editors like you!

3619: 516:(also available at the article's history) and I explained why it wasnt in fact a "good job" entirely, so I copy-edited it. Stop reverting me please. I explained myself at the talk page, addressed any and every point you made, and if we both want to avoid 5293:

Immediate resolution is required about the validity of my tags of Woovee's statement including the Reason given. In the long term, resolution is required about whether the subject of these reunion bands should be covered in the T.Rex article or not.

4477:. There is no reason to include the image you want to include. I am re-removing it. Please stop adding it. If you have questions, certainly ask me. I'll be happy to help. Attempting to edit war a copyright violating image onto the article is 2219:

This is in recognition of all of your fine efforts over the years. In this instance, I wish to mention your dedication to accuracy and reliability in our sources--and that is just what we need to be considered a credible encyclopedia. .

665:

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

1856:

as much as gothic rock, maybe more so. There's a whole movement of American noise rock bands who aped TBP. Instead of singling out any area of influence, it's better to just say they were one of the most influential post-punk bands. -

1092:

was accurate to the high-quality reliable sources, but much of it isn't. It can be difficult to improve an article when it has several watchers making sure that dubious content does not change. The problem is, Indopug didn't bother to

703:

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

2182:

Hey Woovie, I enjoyed getting a chance get to meet you the other day--thanks for being so understanding. I can see that you are interested in music, so I am looking forward to working with you on many projects in the future.

472:

and mixed reviews. They let the reviews speak for themselves. Also, stop with the "you're a Punk sockpuppet" bullshit. I'm not a sockpuppet and your baseless accusations are completely irrelevant to my edits of This is PiL.

977:

that Knowledge (XXG) was created. "Wiki" means quick - its essence is that multiple users can directly edit text collaboratively and directly, rather than having long discussions to get agreement first. Do it the wiki way -

2592:

I've been getting mixed messages. For the longest time, I thought we were supposed to do like you said and only included studio albums in the infoboxes for studio album articles and tried implementing that policy on the

1838:

Cave's output is generally characterised by emotional intensity, a wide variety of influences, and lyrical obsessions with death, religion, love and violence. NME described him as "the grand lord of gothic lushness"." -

1667:

Hi Woovee, Could you send me the link to the Knowledge (XXG) policy against copying sentences from other WP articles? As I understand it, the requirement is that you acknowledge the source in your edit summary, which I

5971: 4936: 4620: 4013: 3571: 3413: 3138: 5884:" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( 2098:. 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 2613:. There's more than those four but I just wanted to show you why I applied that to the Depeche Mode chain, even though as I said it was my understanding we were only supposed to do studio albums like you said. 5330:

make the claim that the band ultimately ended when Mark Bolan died, or that both POVs (the band ended/the band did not end) should be included and each be reliably sourced (with page numbers if applicable).

1821:

if you haven't already. It's clear that Cave and the other BP members detested the goth scene and wrote "Release the Bats" as a parody of its followers. I hope we can reach some kind of consensus here. -

5377:, then both viewpoints should be included in the article, per "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." 5955:. 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 4920:. 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 4604:. 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 3997:. 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 3555:. 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 3397:. 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 3122:. 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 5349:

I'm not even sure Paytress made such a statement, particularly in his second Bolan book as briefly cited. (If a page number and quote can be provided for authentication, that would be fair enough.)

2632:

been released under another title and with another tracklisting in the US for instance, it would have been relevant to mention it. But including live albums, compilations, remixes cds is a no-no.

283:

page and added that terrible Clash Music review. I mean not just the rating but the content itself. Also it's very, very short. I can't call this a honest review, but a hateful and biased review.

5783:

is probably the best approach. An RFC is often the best way of dealing with an editor who appears to be in a minority or editing against consensus, because it establishes a binding consensus.

5530:

Have done so below. Do Woovee and myself still need to get our remaining posts (my second and both of Woovee's) done on the talk page as requested by yourself above, or is that abandoned now?

5473:

either there or here, such that this thread ends up being closed or threatened with closure due to inacticvity (or whatever similar reason) I feel I would be well within my rights to revert

2931:

Not really, I've never seen a citation for a tracklisting, in an article about an album. One can add the BMG catalogue numbers for the standard edition and the Japanese edition, eventually.

5940: 4905: 4590: 3983: 3541: 237: 2999: 2804: 2861:

As for diffuser.fm not being mentioned on Metacritic, I don't know what criteria Metacritic uses. But the Times review for example isn't mentioned there either, nor the one in the

233: 757:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

3480:

As the RfC seems to have gone quiet and since you seem to be expanding the scope of this (viz deleting the details of band members' deaths) I have sought an alternative route.

4697:, because I'm not arguing against any policy? I'm trying to make fit better with what the sources say, which would put it better in line with policies. Thanks, no bad blood. 5725:

on the article talk page. If the other editor returns and disagrees with their edits, moderated discussion can be reopened. Otherwise moderated discussion can be closed.

512:(with an edit summary). Then you reverted me, saying "This was a good job" and Consensus is "not for the only opponent in 9 months" (whatever the hell that means). Check my 2897:

music GA/FA. Diffuser.fm's looks like a summary of other reviews, it is my view. There are plenty of other reviews available for this album, I've just added another one.

5477:'s last reversion and reinstate the CN and Neutrality notes complete with reason tags. I don't want a revert war but all this silence could frankly be interpreted as 4501: 620:. 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. 5820: 5125: 4334:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

3683:. I'm supposed to notify you before I request one to make sure you're alright with it, so I hope you're in support as I believe it would help to reach a consensus. 999:

I did several edits the last two weeks; the problem is they were quickly reverted and rejected by the same person who has been presenting the "song 2" single as "

752: 5576:

again. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss the article here rather than on the article talk page, and do not edit the article.

2395: 632: 5603:

prior to Woovee's 2018/2019 edits - probably in more concise form than the old version - should be input. As a compromise I would accept the existing wording

693: 5579:

I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that someone else wants changed.

4395: 3461:

I should advise you to participate in the RfC debate if you want your views on the subject to count towards the consensus on the subject on Knowledge (XXG).

3785: 3214: 3065: 2667: 2509: 2152: 1970: 1783: 1738: 1493: 852: 799: 247: 190: 137: 84: 4234:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for 3018:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2341: 127: 4307:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 2390: 6047:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to

5786:

At this point, there has been normal editing of the article for four days. I will close the moderated discussion in between one and three more days.

5664:

Does each editor have any other comments on the other suggestions? Does either editor have any specific other ideas for improvements to the article?

2847: 123: 3943: 713: 3188: 2439:

Thanks for posing the question. I fixed it so it is now a Request for Comments. I added your signature to the question as that is what is required.

180: 4740: 5881: 5779:

If the other editor who has not edited in two weeks, with whom there were disagreements, returns and reverts the edits, or disagrees with them, a

3200: 2710:

without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge (XXG) with an accurate

842: 789: 623:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

176: 1128:

Thank you. I see that at last, some people agree with the fact that there's a problem of neutrality on this article, huge to my point of view.

838: 785: 721: 3781: 3210: 3061: 2663: 2505: 2148: 1966: 1779: 1734: 1489: 848: 795: 243: 186: 133: 80: 3168:

thanks for the message. i didn't mean to edit war or anything. thanks for the message though. I'll do my best to never do what i did again.

74: 42:. Please note that I have reverted your changes as some of them appeared to be deleting content, which requires explanation. Thank you. -- 5994: 5630:

2) If a page number is found, the sentence may stand as written but should be balanced with another POV to achieve a neutral point of view

4959: 4643: 4035: 3593: 3486: 3462: 3427: 3152: 2123: 5002:

significantly modify - the text as we have agreed it, we will proceed to a Request For Comment discussion board topic about this article.

3888:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s 3015: 1483: 5170: 4474: 4303:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

2851: 1625:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews

647:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 70: 5740:

If moderated discussion is closed and subsequently the other editor returns and the dispute resumes, what recourses will we then have?

4462: 2498:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1959:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

5205: 1479: 406:

Don't reintroduce your change to the article without explaining them elsewhere first. It saves a lot of reverting of mass changes. As

581: 5166: 1934: 221: 4732: 3196: 1697:

read CWW, and didn't find any discussion of copying being discouraged. If I missed the section, please point it out to me, thanks.

5237: 1645:) notable enough. If you go to this Policy, you will see that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." 697: 689: 324:

You started to get on my nerves. I will NOT tolerate your attempts to insert your shitty review. Move the issue on Talk Page of

5990: 5333:

Note: I re-read the DRN rules and have modified the sentence above so as to comment solely on content, and not on contributors.

4955: 4639: 4429: 4031: 3589: 3423: 3148: 2734: 2119: 5964: 5281: 4929: 4748: 4613: 4006: 3564: 3406: 3131: 3058:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1486:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 845:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 792:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 748: 585: 240:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 183:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 130:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 77:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5158: 2922: 2875: 2714:. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the 2660:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2502:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2145:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1963:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1776:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1731:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4752: 4687: 3927:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2787:, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2455:

I thought to ask it at wikiproject alternative, as it doesn't only concern this article. I found a lot of sources for this

1687:

requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Knowledge (XXG)'s

936:

concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the

3932: 3482:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:T._Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section

2965: 717: 675: 5221: 4800: 3771: 488: 27: 4760: 3257: 2110:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1623:

Hi, I don't think that the URL you are using works anymore, as the thread has been archived. I think this should work:

973:

then Knowledge (XXG) wouldn't be the success it is. It was because of the slowness of getting agreement for content on

467:

Did you even bother looking at what I did in my previous edit? I didn't add or remove any reviews. I removed "However,

5976: 4941: 4625: 4018: 3576: 3418: 3143: 2115: 2056: 6052: 2499: 1960: 5628:

comma cannot be verified through an online search, and thus may be original research or not a neutral point of view.

3892:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

5396:

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

5016: 3042:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3019: 3005: 2652:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2137:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1768:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1723:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1470:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

829:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

776:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

744: 682: 616: 412: 5635: 5371: 4469:

failed project at this point. We can not accept copyrighted, non-free materials on this project unless used under

3680: 3341: 5791: 5730: 5669: 5584: 5520: 5408: 5094: 4346: 4297: 4275: 4231: 4219: 3853: 3845: 2382: 6019:

and instated incorrect grammar through capitalising non-proper nouns. Your summary argued for the edit claiming

4765: 4744: 4728: 4195:

You're welcome re the thank - incidentally I have noticed a similar claim re. the end of Bowie's Glam run - the

2282:, thank you very much. I used to be more prolific. I still keep on adding content on articles when I have time. 2051: 5909: 4110: 3490: 3466: 3299: 2570: 2350: 1709: 1655: 5952: 4917: 4601: 3994: 3552: 3394: 3119: 1852:

TBP was influential on the gothic rock genre - and many other (sub)genres. It's arguable that they influenced

286:

Also you removed a 5 star review just to add that crappy review. That Clash Music review can be found through

6051:, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Knowledge (XXG) has some 5869: 4668: 3055: 2843: 2034:

Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman", "Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson" , "David Bowie|David Robert Jones". Thanks.

1548:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1402:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1293:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1220:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

326: 279: 5573: 5512: 5508: 4335: 4253: 3881: 3775: 3204: 1684: 1642: 476: 6028: 5838: 5765: 5745: 5692: 5616: 5555: 5535: 5486: 5452: 5434: 5354: 5199: 5024: 4984: 4743:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

4702: 4208: 3923: 3856:, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 3739: 3688: 2425: 2309: 2264: 2225: 2188: 447: 407: 5086: 4736: 4304: 4235: 2111: 5267:

and insinuating that I must be motivated by somehow being related to the musicians involved (I am not!)

5260: 4664: 3767: 3509: 2970: 2793: 2707: 1624: 1609: 655: 3253: 628: 5252: 4252:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

2982:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 5787: 5726: 5710: 5665: 5646: 5580: 5516: 5466: 5404: 5382: 5339: 5231: 5090: 5036:

Here is a copy of the thread, with only formatting modifications with regard to subheader heirarchy:

4486: 4473:, which this would not qualify for since we have a perfectly good image of him in concert in 1973 at 4342: 4264: 3758:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3676: 3449:

This is to notify you that there is a Request for Comment discussion on the talkpage for the article

3192: 3187:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2987: 2977: 2813: 2784: 2618: 2578: 1894: 1880: 1862: 1843: 1827: 1590: 1430: 1368: 1259: 6061: 5934: 5374: 4899: 4584: 3977: 3535: 3381: 3106: 2715: 2087: 2078: 979: 648: 388: 5905: 5861: 5006: 4976: 4200: 4162: 4106: 4058: 3481: 3030: 2729: 2719: 2594: 2346: 1705: 1651: 1572:

review-8014875.html "Meltdown: Elizabeth Fraser, Royal Festival Hall - review"]. ''Evening Standard

910: 895: 355: 335: 313: 298: 5948: 4913: 4694: 4597: 4338:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 4293: 4246: 3990: 3548: 3390: 3337: 3115: 2862: 2107: 2091: 6069: 5278: 5162: 5077:

reverting, because there has been rough consensus. If there is a resumption of disagreement, an

3759: 3640: 3456: 3454:

participating in the discussion. In case your notification has failed to arrive, here is a link:

3291: 3173: 2917: 2870: 2068: 1945: 1923: 1916: 1561:

walesartsreview.org/elizabeth-fraser/ 'Elizabeth Fraser Live'] by Adrian Master, Welsh Art Review

1457: 1233:

com/artist/292472/blur/chart?f=377 Billboard Alternative Songs] Billboard.com. Retrieved 9-1-2014

1068: 1026: 991: 964: 480: 5366: 589: 544: 535:

Unless you have a specific issue about my improvement that's violating any guideline, then dont

521: 451: 428: 420: 392: 115: 31: 3295: 427:. I'm trying to improve this article, so your preferential edits are getting a bit in the way. 6024: 6016: 5834: 5761: 5741: 5702: 5688: 5612: 5551: 5531: 5515:. If there is agreement for moderated discussion, we will proceed with moderated discussion. 5482: 5448: 5430: 5350: 5321: 5195: 5055: 5020: 4980: 4874: 4840: 4782: 4698: 4558: 4524: 4452: 4414: 4380: 4204: 4181: 4147: 4073: 3835: 3801: 3735: 3716: 3699: 3684: 3356: 3314: 3272: 3230: 3081: 2711: 2683: 2555: 2517: 2421: 2370: 2305: 2279: 2260: 2221: 2184: 2168: 2016: 1799: 1754: 1693: 1688: 1509: 1320:

sitesearch/#/dan%2520morrell/ "Dan Morrell on NYTimes Search"]. NYTimes.com. retrieved 20-1-14

1162: 887: 883: 868: 815: 762: 729: 380: 263: 206: 153: 100: 47: 35: 5960: 5631: 5511:, and should each make a statement saying that they agree to moderated discussion subject to 4925: 4609: 4470: 4002: 3560: 3402: 3127: 2718:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 2103: 2095: 1327:

who only wrote four articles to the paper according to ''The New York Times''{{'}}s archives,

933: 577: 5983: 4948: 4632: 4025: 3820: 3583: 3505: 3051: 2835: 2657: 2523: 1605: 1537: 1445: 1250:

It has been licensed worldwide on numerous occasions. Its first appearance came as the title

484: 5963:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5956: 5780: 5310:

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

5302:

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

5264: 5082: 5078: 4928:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4921: 4612:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4605: 4289: 4242: 4005:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3998: 3889: 3563:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3556: 3405:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3398: 3130:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3123: 2797: 2377:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

2106:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2099: 1680: 1646: 517: 5873: 5849: 5706: 5642: 5422: 5378: 5335: 5227: 5017:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_227#T.Rex_(band)

4724: 4683: 4482: 4260: 4199:

page claimed that it was Bowie's last glam anthem, even though the next Bowie single, the

3951: 3656:, thank you so much for this kind message :) Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear too. 2809: 2614: 2574: 2481: 2444: 1993: 1890: 1876: 1858: 1839: 1823: 1724: 1586: 1529: 1426: 1383: 1364: 1274: 1255: 1201: 593: 548: 525: 455: 432: 396: 376: 168: 39: 6020: 5282:

Talk:T. Rex (band)#A note/reference about T. Rex after Bolan's death: was it still a band

4796:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

4245:. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request 3928: 3867: 3861: 3857: 1354:

ISBN 978-0-9765531-5-1 (Vol 1: 1950-1989) & ISBN 978-0-9765531-6-8 (Vol 2: 1990-2008)

5421:

Hi, I thought it automatically notified the parties concerned. I have already notified

4091: 3778:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 3207:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2206: 1604:

Thanks for taking the time to edit all those scaruffi reviews on the Fahey album pages.

1243:{{Allmusic|class=song|id=t1279006}} Song 2 | AllMusic 710:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

539:

that I cant make constructive edits to this article, which I've mightily improved since

5897: 4769: 3027: 2748: 2724: 2703: 2573:

about my edits on Siouxsie related articles that may interest you. thanks for reading.

2413: 2246: 1391: 1282: 891: 830: 781: 777: 384: 375:

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Knowledge (XXG), as you did to

351: 331: 309: 308:

As I said before, you're the vandal because YOU try to insert your own terrible review.

294: 172: 5641:

and improve the referencing such that each claim has a citation to a reliable source.

3877: 3873: 3002:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 6065: 5153: 4823: 4810: 4539: 4437: 4128: 3893: 3792: