User talk:Michig/Archive13

Paul "Jah Screw" Love

Thanks. It would have been nice to have some time to work on it before the deletionists wade in with their "Delete. Not notable"s, but, ok.--Michig (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Too late. Thanks very much. Nice to know my talk page is being watched though.--Michig (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for move of Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Teenage_Dream to mainspace]]

The article has been highly improved, and has had the track listing added. The article is already being linked to, so it should just be moved. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your assistance...

The Reference Desk Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for resolving the identity of Wanted (game show), which has bugged me on and off for years. Thanks very much! AJCham 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Glad I could help. You can watch a bit of the show here.--Michig (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Noseflutes...

Hello Michig. I've just done a rough-ish pass on a Noseflutes page, and - when checking What Links Here - I noticed it was on your to-do list. As you're a much more experienced Wikipedian than me, I'd be grateful for any advice or help. No obligation, of course. Cheers, Ned-kogar (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff - I've expnaded it a little.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! You're a properly good Wikipedian - that's very thorough work... and very handy to know that the refs are placed after punctuation. Only a fool could want to delete it now... Ned-kogar (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no shortage of fools around here, but hopefully it will be ok.--Michig (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Brown (reggae musician)

I happened to be checking some Jackie Brown versions on YouTube today, and thought to check if there was anthing on WP. Zilch. However I did find a very informative interview on Reggae Vibes. A good candidate for your todo list? One thing he mentions in that interview is a film called Serious Thing by Hugh King - that appears to be a lost treasure. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I keep seeing Jackie Brown records around and thinking that we should have an article. I'll see what I can dig up.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to learn he is the brother of North London promoter Castro Brown, but, as he alludes in the interview, chalk and cheese. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Concept Album

You are one of the few users still active who helped to cleanup this article. The good debate about what should be mentioned in the article has started up again and was wondering if you would like to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ SS

Hi, you deprodded the DJ SS article because you said he had a UK hit single in 2002. Can you provide a source for that please? That bit of information is not in his article and I don't see that anywhere. Thanks, Tavix |  Talk  23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship again?

User talk:Michig/Archive11#Would you like a mop? → I asked you about 9 months ago if you were interested in going for adminship, I figured I'd ask you again. I would most certainly be happy to nominate you as I think you're plenty suitable for the job. –MuZemike 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think and get back to you, probably tomorrow. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's go for it. Maybe leave it until the weekend though as I may not be around much tomorrow. Thanks again for your confidence in me.--Michig (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! There's a lot of candidates right now, anyways. May be a better idea to wait a couple of days. I'll get something written up, and whenever you're ready, you can accept the nomination and answer the first three questions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michig. –MuZemike 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will take a look tomorrow/Saturday. Cheers.--Michig (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been tied up trying to get some painting done before the weather changes - hopefully tomorrow.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep in mind that I will be extremely busy all day tomorrow, so I may not get the RFA underway (i.e. transcluding it after you've accepted and answered the first 3 questions) immediately. –MuZemike 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted, questions answered. Ready to go whenever you have the time. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's now live. Good luck! –MuZemike 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Kamen

You seem to know something about music notability standards, any chance you could peek over this one for me sometime? He looks just like a session musician to me (who has worked with big names but doesn't seem to have had an independent career nor been a band member), and I was tempted to take this to AFD, but don't want to create an unnecessary fuss if such a career is in fact obviously notable in the eyes of a more expert editor! 'Twould be appreciated if you could give it an eyeball :) TheGrappler (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Session musicians can be a problem regarding notability. Some are notable, but most are not I think, as they are almost by definition hired hands who don't get written about. In this case, I think a lot of the content here can be verified, e.g. I found sources confirming he's worked with Duran Duran, Bryan Ferry, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, and Madonna, and Allmusic lists a lot of these,[1] but that's about it. I didn't find anything that I would consider significant coverage of Chester Kamen himself, so I think this would likely get deleted at AFD. Hope that helps.--Michig (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I can see that sources exist, but it's not clear that he passes the GNG. I will nominate the article for AFD as I am very averse to the existence of BLPs on marginally-notable people unless it's clear the articles are being very actively maintained. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Kamen if you're interested. TheGrappler (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Headblade

Hello, just a quick note to let you know that I deprodded this article. A Google search didn't look promising, and Google News didn't find a lot but there was a surprising amount on Google Books, which I have detailed on the article's talk page. I feel there's probably enough coverage to establish notability, but at the very least enough to warrant discussion at AFD, if you're still inclined towards deletion. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I did a sloppy search. Good pick up. SilkTork *YES! 08:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wallets

Excellent work on finding sources, but they still don't appear in the article. Would you like to do the honors? Dlohcierekim 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do so - I've already said I'll try to source another one today so may not be until tomorrow as I have other things going on at the moment.--Michig (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvels & Alexander 'Dimples' Hinds

I just came across this. Notable? Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm sure I've got the Marvels' Trojan album from the mid-1970s - seems to be one of those albums that reggae fans don't seem all that keen on. They did another album on Pama Records, so it looks like 2 albums on significant enough labels, so very likely notable. Dave Thompson's book has details of some of their singles from the 60s, but I can't find much else on the group in the other books that I have. Jackie Edwards being a member for a time isn't going to hurt re. notability, but I'd like a few more sources to go on before starting an article. Dimple(s) Hinds also released a solo single in 1974.[2] There's a short piece about the group here also, but it wouldn't stand up as a reliable source. Haven't found much else, but if you come across anything let me know. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there was another album in 1978: In The Middle of the Night on the Night Owl label.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thank you for answering my question about editing once I've taken something to deletion. I see your point and think it's probably best if I leave the article alone, because one could absolutely get the impression I'm trying to make it go 'my way'. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's best, and I appreciate your caution in asking the question rather than just diving in and editing it.--Michig (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new and improved Tuff City Records

That was either very fast work on your part, or very bad timing on mine. Apologies - I would have saved us both some work had I known you were already writing a replacement for the original WP:COPYVIO article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast work on my part I think - I saw that Tuff City didn't have an article from one of your delinks showing up on my watchlist and was somewhat surprised, so started a new one. Maybe as it was deleted as copyvio rather than through lack of notability, the redlinks should have been left, though maybe it wasn't obviously notable to everyone. We now have a sourced non-copyvio article, though, so it's all good, I think. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats...

For what's about to come... :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA…

…has demonstrated a consensus of the members of the English wikipedia project to afford you the sysop maintenance tool kit. Congratulations. Now AfD is thataway --> :) -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. A hearty congratulations. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!!! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! You'll do great. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The road is not for the swift.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the others already said what I said above. Exercise sound judgment and keep the best considerations of the encyclopedia and those running it in mind, and you'll do a fine job. Let me know if you have any admin-related questions. Congratulations, –MuZemike 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on being handed the mop! Best wishes, Jusdafax 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my RFA. It was heartening and surprising, given my past impressions of the RFA process, to receive such an overwhelming vote of confidence. I'll comment further this evening as work means that I'll be offline for the next half-day, but thanks again and if you think I can use the admin tools to help out anywhere please let me know.--Michig (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than thankspamming everyone who supported my nom I thought I'd just leave a few words here. Firstly, many thanks to MuZemike for convincing me to go for it and for the nomination. I had a rather jaded view of the RFA process so was initially reluctant but it all went surprisingly well. Secondly, thanks to all who thought up questions to ask me, and all who contributed to the discussion. I had decided at the outset that unless I thought anyone made a comment that was grossly unfair, I was not going to challenge anyone's opinion, or pursue further discussion on their talk page. In the end there wasn't really anything to challenge. I answered some of the questions quite quickly and later thought I could have answered some better but once the support's started coming in I decided to leave them be. I thought all of the questions that I answered were fair and well thought out, particularly Q10, despite the concerns of some. While it took some time longer to answer than others, it was a question that anyone likely to work in reviewing speedy-deletions and PRODs should be able to answer without much of a problem, and gives a good insight, I think, into how a prospective admin is likely to perform in this area. I would therefore be happy to see a similar question in future RFAs. I declined to answer optional question 11 partly because I had already answered enough questions in my opinion, partly because it was clearly optional, and partly because it was too open-ended to be answered without veering into essay territory. Groomtech indicated in his neutral vote that he wanted to know whether I had "thought about the difference between judges and janitors". Had that been the question, I would have happily answered, probably I suspect to Groomtech's satisfaction.

Although I've read a lot of the 'new admin' guides already, I have a lot of reading to do to make sure I'm more familiar with these areas that I would previously have had to leave to someone else, and some practicing to do before I start using the tools in earnest. I intend to continue editing much as I have done before and expect my use of the admin tools to increase gradually over time. As I said above, please feel free to ask me to help in any area you feel that I can. One area I hope to contribute to more in the future is RFAs themselves, as this is a vital process that relies on as many people as possible to look thoroughly at the candidates and make a fair and sensible judgment on what is officially 'not a big deal' (though it's nice to get such a vote of confidence). Thanks again.--Michig (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost

Hi, could you check the blurb I wrote on you? Please let me know of any improvements that could be made. Tony (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson (musician)

You wasted no time to jump on that one, if there is enough on him in that book I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Congratulations on the mop, I was glad to see your RfA going so well. J04n(talk page) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's released plenty of albums on recognized Jamaican reggae labels. I 'know' he's notable, but I'll dig around to see what else I can find - we need more than one source in the article really. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to do a thorough search now until tomorrow evening, but there's also a short bio in Chuck Foster's book Roots Rock Reggae, and some coverage in Steve Barrow & Peter Dalton's The Rough Guide to Reggae. He's also released at least 10 albums. It's enough for me. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's still 6+ days to look at it. We'll end up with a better article which is always the best outcome. Take care, J04n(talk page) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, do you have anything on this one: Mamady "Wadaba" Kourouma. J04n(talk page) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very short of book sources on African music - I might delve into that area when I've run out of reggae articles to write/improve. All the Google news results seem to be from the Fresno Bee, and I couldn't find much else. He does, however, appear to be covered one of the dodgiest Wikipedia rip-off books I've ever come across: Unreferenced Blps from November 2007 by Rubn Rodrguez, Shinji Takahashi, Hctor Barber, & Miguel Figueroa, apparently.--Michig (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we found the same stuff (or lack of), oh well. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East River Pipe

Michig, ...Yes, you're right. Those bands had American members. East River Pipe was the first "solo" artist signed to Sarah Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepastey (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East River Pipe

Michig, Well, to be exact, "first American solo artist" signed to Sarah Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepastey (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at WookieInHeat's talk page.
Message added 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jane Brox re deletion question

Thanks for your help with that article. You are appreciated. Raymondwinn (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


verifiable reliable source ?

I've edited the article to make it clear that this is Geldof's explanation. You'll need a reliable source that states that he contradicted this in a concert before the article is changed to state that. Download sites that require registration are not suitable for citing in articles, so so you'll need a verifiable reliable source before changing the article to indicate an alternative explanation.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The concert was syndicated. It was broadcast. Will a broadcast date and station suffice? I am still puzzled as to how hearing someone say something on a recording is not verifiable. 86.18.176.174 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee

Does this count?

DIR Radio Network Show broadcast April 1, 1979 - Boomtown Rats 86.18.176.174 (talk)ArrGee —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC).

62.129.121.63 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)ArrGee[reply]

Armageddon theology

Hi, we could use some admin help here. The editors that are voting delete are editing the article to get their way. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding maintenance tags is acceptable, as long as they are valid and not excessive. Nobody !voting delete seems to be removing content so I don't really see a problem here that required admin intervention. --Michig (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Josh Jonousky

Why did you delete josh jonausky's article. That guy is a famous magician and will soon rival in popularity with david blaine, criss angel, and david copperfield. I've seen this guys perform live. He has his own vegas show but is still a college student. Wikipedia is dumb and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.240.252 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only content in the article was:
Joshua Janousky  (born January 30, 1991) is an American magician, illusionist, comedian, writer, and is currently a full-time college student.
This gives no indication that the subject meets any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Another editor requested that it be deleted for this reason, and I deleted it. You state that "he has his own vegas show" and that he is a "famous magician", but neither of these were stated in the article. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and guidelines for notability that a subject needs to meet in order to be included. I searched for coverage of Janousky to see if he had been the subject of any articles, etc., but found nothing that indicated that he was notable. Once people start writing about him, there may be a case for having an article here. --Michig (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Samantha Spiegel Wikipedia

Why was my page deleted? How can I, Samantha Spiegel, make personal attacks against myself? The page was deleted before I could source or credit anything. I wasn't given a chance.

Many thanks, Samantha Alix Spiegel (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article consisted largely of unsourced negative claims about another individual. Hence, it was deleted.--Michig (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sourced material on Zarjaz

Hello, in my step as I seem to be hovering around this page lately, I think the revisions you made to the Sigue Sigue Sputnik page are an incredible improvement but there are still considerable flaws.

1. I keep adding information about The Zarjaz that is important to the origins of this group and some of the concepts they take credit for. Why have you removed this? You seem to be deleting information that you are not aware of.

2. Some of the details and dates you give reference to don’t add up. From the sources you reference you say that this group were successful from 1982, where in other places you say that at that time there was just an idea to form a band. In any case this group did not become a group until 1985. A support slot in Paris, on the basis of an idea to form a group, with no definite band members and no name is more of an example of failure than success, especially for people who already had a background in mainstream music.

3. The main source of reference you rely on throughout this page – Dave Thompson – is clearly taking his source of reference from self promoting elements of the group and other objective details would be essential. I do not have a copy of this book but on the face of it should have objective input. Obviously, Dave Thompson, as with yourself, has a vast knowledge of some areas of popular music and access to others. I think any thorough investigative journalism would easily uncover details of Zarjaz. This means that either no investigative journalism took place in the example of the book you are relying on or the details have been intentionally omitted. Any other reference to these details would be vital, if not just for music historians and editors such as yourself and myself. Harleancarpenter (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mention deletion of 'sourced material' but that's just the problem - there wasn't a single source cited to back up any of it, and none of the sources I found mention Zarjaz at all. Given that an album was released in 1990 containing demos from 1984, the band clearly existed before 1985 - I added nothing to say that they were successful before 1985. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - any information needs to be verifiable via reliable sources to be included.--Michig (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The thing is that I have been placing info, including source and references but these all are disappearing. I'm not wasting my time.

With all respect, as far as I know, with what I admit is limited and novice experience with Wikipedia, it would be acceptable Wikiprotocol to leave details that are unverified but flag them giving editors the chance to ad notes Wikipedia:Citing sources - Deaing with unsourced material. You have not done this but you have taken down notes and edits without question, twice, within 12 hours, as if you have a personal problem with the details themselves. I believe this is wrong and because of this I hope you understand why I might reasonably think that your actions could be seen as vandalism. I beleive I have a right to place these details but you should leave the notes in place and give me the opportunity to reference them.

Pease let me point out this quote, by you, on your own Wikipedia user page - re Wikipedia annoyances

People who nominate articles for deletion without making any effort to determine whether the subject is notable and/or improve the articles in question. We're here to build an encyclopedia not to see how much stuff we can get deleted as quickly as possible.

I hope you would understand why I might think that you may be protecting the information on this page as a representatibve for interested parties.

Lastly, what is it precicely that you feel is unverified about this? Are you questioning the existence of Zarjaz on the music scene at that time? Is it just the claim to be connected at all?

If it is the latter of these let me put some points to you?

1. I have already pointed out that the references you are relying on could have and should have mentioned Zarjaz as objective details within an example of unbiased journalism and also that because this has not happened there is reason to offer alternative details. The source you rely on may be respected and prolific but is incomplete. With this in mind it may be fair to say that your source, under the circumstances should be removed if mine are removed.

2. The claim made by Zarjaz is just that - an important claim made by Zarjaz, about details concerning the origins of this group, in the public domain and so this would in fairness be verifiable by referencing any place or places these claims have been made. I would need to do no more than that and I have done just this, as I have said, but these have been pulled at one point or another.

3. You are saying that your source is credible even though details concerning this important issue are missing. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that YOUR sources have failed to mention them. Even down to Tony James. He has not mentioned Zarjaz within your sources but he has not denied them either. For you to say or even imply that these claims are false, which I believe you are doing, is questionable.

5. I have noted that your writing does not include details of the band being sued by Stanley Kubrick for using A Clockwork Orange clips without permission. As I say I have not read your source book but does it mention this anywhere? If it does I must ask then why didn't you mention it? If it doesn't I would ask why not?

4. You have claimed that the band put out and album in 1990 of what you believe to be demos from 1984. Before I changed it your heading for the section "Success" initially detailed 1982 - look at the edits. It seems to be the only edit you didn't undo.

I will reference these details to the best of my ability. I will reference the Zarjaz claims r.e. Albinoni vs Starwars to where claims are being made in the public domain (again). Further to this I suppose it would be between Tony James and Zarjaz to argue it out if things are being denied and not for me or you to alter. As I say I am just noting that claims are being made as a Wikipedia user. Harleancarpenter (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. There are no reliable sources stating that Zarjaz had anything to do with the band. If there were I would happily include it. I searched for them but didn't find them. If any of the sources mentioned the band being sued by Kubrick I would have put it in the article. You'll need reliable sources independent of the band and of Zarjaz stating his involvement if you're going to include it in the article.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010