User talk:TheJazzDalek/2010-03
![]() | 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. |
March 2010
Hi, if you redirect articles like you did to Bin Laden (song) can you please make sure that you don't just totally delete all the references and instead add them into the main article? You should also probably consider adding a merge template too beforehand so that others could discuss whether the redirect is appropriate. Thanks Smartse (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see anything that, in my opinion, needed to be brought over (two of the three references were for who was on the record and the third was for a quote about an album the song's not even on). And since it pretty clearly fails TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet you might want to check out
Lolipopz99 has made yet another sockpuppet - WuNation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Same type of edits, same pages, etc.) --Blastmaster11 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wondered when he'd be back. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Jonny Greenwood
Hi there - just a quick note to let you know that I've reverted your recent edit to the Jonny Greenwood article. You cited your reason as "reference overkill". Because it is a biography for living persons, it's best to have reliable sources for everything included in the article. There are several reasons for this, one being that if one of the website references' address is moved, we have others to rely on besides that one ciatation. Besides, verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy. It can't hurt to have plenty of reliable sources =) TheTwoRoads (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Supplying three references for one sentence does not make it more true. Choose the best one (in this case, exclaim.ca) and remove the rest. Anything more than that is bloat. If a link later dies, a quick trip to the Wayback Machine will fix it 9 times out of 10. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if my first post sounded aggresive and confrontational, I swear I didn't intend for it to come accross like that. Looking at what was in the references, I'm certain that they were sources for that entire paragraph, not just that one last sentence. I did take a look at them, and basically they all make the same points. I've changed it back to your edit with just that one source from exclaim. I suppose you were right, it's just that I'm somewhat, erm, protective of certain articles that I've been trying to improve. Yes, Wikipedia is a collective project, and you were being reasonable. I'll admit that I was a bit hasty in reverting, but that word "overkill" really got to me for some reason. Again, apologies for making a big deal out of nothing. Cheers! TheTwoRoads (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's cool. The "overkill" was a reaction to dealing with similar examples (usually way worse) too many times. I could (should) have been less brusque in my edit summary. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's cool. The "overkill" was a reaction to dealing with similar examples (usually way worse) too many times. I could (should) have been less brusque in my edit summary.
- Sorry if my first post sounded aggresive and confrontational, I swear I didn't intend for it to come accross like that. Looking at what was in the references, I'm certain that they were sources for that entire paragraph, not just that one last sentence. I did take a look at them, and basically they all make the same points. I've changed it back to your edit with just that one source from exclaim. I suppose you were right, it's just that I'm somewhat, erm, protective of certain articles that I've been trying to improve. Yes, Wikipedia is a collective project, and you were being reasonable. I'll admit that I was a bit hasty in reverting, but that word "overkill" really got to me for some reason. Again, apologies for making a big deal out of nothing. Cheers! TheTwoRoads (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. You added the {{
) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)HipHopDX
Why is this site recognized as SPAM? There are so many uses of this site as a source.
- If you'll check the TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Charts
Since when, exactly, is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network not a reliable chart source? How exactly is it any different from using Triple J or BBC Radio 1, both of which you'd find extreme objection to disqualifying as sources? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- In TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions?
It was rumored on the internet that the album
- I though it seemed a little ridiculous to create an article for that "group" when it's really just a collaboration. Since checkuser failed us (I agree, it's certainly the same user), the only thing I can think of is to take the group's article to TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Its restoration
- Thanks for the notice. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheJazzDalek/2010-03. |