User talk:Garchy/Archive 1

Reverted your revert - if we are citing that source, that source does indeed reference two different sounds: "Suddenly there was a loud rumbling sound and then a "rat-a-tat-tat" that witnesses described as sounding like a machine gun." Echoedmyron (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for all the revert issues. Glad we are clearing them up. :) As for genres, I'm aware that most genres are unsourced on wikipedia and I'm sure you have encountered as much as I have that most edits I see on music articles are genre warriors. In the past, I was more general, but I don't think it's fair for us to just pick and choose the genres we want as music genre (especially underground sub-sub-genres) are subjective. There's a rule on wikipedia (which I can't find at the moment, bare with me as some stuff is buried :) ) that states we can't use other wiki pages as sources, even if they are cited. So for albums articles to be high quality, we need to find specific sources about the albums itself. This is especially for true bands who have existed for a long time, as music styles change and fluctuate.

So that's why I'm saying it's best to try and find sources for music specifically on a per album and per song basis. It's more accurate, and makes our work more professional. I'm open to hear your thoughts on the matter too of course. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Andrzejbanas:, I'm glad we were able to resolve this on a good note! I'm always trying to improve Wikipedia in the best way (by sticking to consensus), so I appreciate you filling me in about the specific editing nuances for the music genre (which I'm new to editing!) Just curious, and I do agree with your statement about not using other wiki's articles to cite: What is the best way to find an official genre for a band or album? I know it can be tough since so many different critics and professional sources can vary widely on this subject! Thanks again, Garchy (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no found "great way" that the article likes to use, but most people prefer to use reviews of the album to discuss the sound and style of albums. If they contradict each other, either place both or go with the one that seems to go more into detail about how it sounds or why the album fits into the genre. I tend to like music that sort of blurs genres and for articles I worked on like Glass Swords (which I went with the most broad statement from Spin magazine) or Quique which spanned several genres but found two sources suggesting it doesn't really fit into any specific genre (Allmusic and Pitchfork). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You tagged Ti Poniro Mou Zitas as an A1 and a A9, however I've removed both tags. It doesn't lack context, at it defines itself to be a studio album, and the artist, Eleni Foureira, does have a Wikipedia article, so A9 doesn't apply. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Joseph2302: for your comments, it may not fit A1 and A9 but it certainly looks to not fit the notability requirements. I may have had the tags incorrect, so I'll tag the article with the proper tags, so as to keep the issues listed so they can be resolved. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's almost certainly not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You tagged WMDE for speedy deletion, even while I was in the process of editing and creating the page. Rather than just tagging random pages for speedy deletion, how about you jump in and help improve the page? Your assistance is welcome! Tadpole256 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Tadpole256:, hope there are no hard feelings. I'm on New Pages patrol, and tagged the page per notability guidelines (no references, something I was not able to find much of through a quick Google search) - I promise I don't tag pages unnecessarily :) - to avoid a repeat tagging of a speedy delete you may want to create a page in your sandbox area first, and then transfer it once it meets the basic Wikipedia layout/notability guidelines. If you have any other questions I'd be happy to give you my take! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No Hard feelings at all, I've just never had a page so speedily tagged before. As you can see, I am rounding it out with additional information and references at this time. Perhaps you could make a note of that fact on the talk page of the article, so that it does not actually get deleted? -Tadpole256 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course! I can't guarantee that it won't be deleted or tagged by someone else, but you seem to have made a lot of progress already to avoid some of the concerning items with the page! I'll add a construction tag to let people know it's a work in progress. Cheers! Garchy (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's already done :) Garchy (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I brought this page up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. I have also been trying to communicate with the page creator, without success. 220 of ^Borg 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I just noticed the author removed my PROD, but another editor seems to have picked it back up! Garchy (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved, image is in use on a new page currently under construction in my sandbox. Garchy (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Taneja Group logo.png

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I the Mighty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connector. 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) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I very hate you!

Are you crazy? Or mad???? Tuyết xanh (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the best way to work with other editors...you have been warned about your disruptive editing by multiple users, not just me. You may want to avoid making personal attacks on users. Garchy (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting

Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk

) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

CJ-10

Hello Garchy,

I have read the source regarding CJ-10 received help from foreign technology. The source is old and is an article which is not reliable. The Chinese have been developing this missile for over a decades.

I removed the rumor or alleged claim because it appears that people try to paint the Chinese of copying, stealing or getting help for everything they do which itself is not true and unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.169.39 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for taking the time to reply on my talk page. Please don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes for easy/quick identification. I understand how the claim you removed may upset some, but it is a legitimate document with proper citations and references, you can't just remove it. Since Wikipedia is worldwide we need to include all word views - perhaps a rewording is in order, but simply removing would not be the best option. We could reword it to say "some have claimed", or something similar. Thanks - Garchy (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

370 flight

what the hell are you talking about the talk page was used for comments that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the subsection! and yet you hit my talk page with a vandalism notice!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@68.231.26.111:, You are editing other user's comments on a talk page, which is not allowed. The issue isn't whether they are on topic or not, it's the fact you are going against consensus and starting a revert war. Please leave the comments, whether you find them relevant or not. They are not yours to delete. Garchy (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Removal of other users comments from a talk page, that is NOT your own user talk, is akin to refactoring others comments. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

and that is a lie - many times over the years others have removed or modified my comments on talk pages - so i know it as a fact that things can get remoed - I WILL SAY IT AGAIN THE 3 COMMENTS I REMOVED HAVE A B S O L U T E L Y N O T H I N G T O D O W I T H T H E S U B S E C T I O N  !!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry your comments have been removed in the past on talk pages, they should not have been removed if they weren't disruptive or vandalism, or deleted after a consensus has been reached. If that happens again you should send them similar warnings to what you have received, or report them. If you are worried that the topic will get diluted you can create a new section under the talk page, and steer people to that to stay on topic. I understand your frustrations, but please don't react the same way as those who have annoyed you in the past by rewording/deleting your own comments! Garchy (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just because you have vandalised pages in the past and it has gone unnoticed, that does not mean it is permissible. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rod Edge

Can this source (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/sep/13/grand-theft-auto-5-dan-houser) confirm that the name be added? Typhoon966 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me - if you haven't already I'll add it back with the ref. Thanks - Garchy (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits to Dance Gavin Dance

You are correct. I was mistaken. I thought I had verified the members from touring musicians, but I had not. That is why I did not follow-up at the article where the edit was reverted. I assumed that you were chastising me incorrectly. Sorry for calling you a liar: I was at fault and you were correct. If I could remove that edit summary from history, I would. Being mistaken does not equate to not being willing to work with other editors though. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dimitrios Kazazis

Hello there. Exactly which part of the article is poorly sourced in your opinion? The three sources I used cover literally 100% of the article's content. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,@Gtrbolivar: - I did not tag the article as poorly sourced, but I did place a tag asking for additional citations for verification. This tag won't affect the livelihood of the article (I did not tag it for deletion, as I believe the subject fits notability guidelines), but will hopefully motivate other users who are familiar with the subject matter to expand the article with more context and citations :) I hope th:at helps! Garchy (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is another template for article expansion, the one you used is exclusively about sources and verification. Anyway, take care man. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP the sources/verification one would be a safer bet (these types of articles are held to a much stricter degree) - since that is required in addition to expansion. Happy editing! Garchy (talk

) 17:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.