User talk:FACT50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 License tagging for Image:Discoverycover1.jpg
2 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Revolutioncover1.jpg)
3 Re: Vernian Process
4 Post-punk
5 Username
6 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Forgottenage.jpg)
7 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vp-promopic copy.gif)
8 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Catalystsep1.jpg)
9 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beholdthemachine.jpg)
10 Image:Vplogo1.jpg listed for deletion
11 Vernian Process

[edit] License tagging for Image:Discoverycover1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discoverycover1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Revolutioncover1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Revolutioncover1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vernian Process

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernian Process and WP:CSD for more information on my deletion. As opposed to reposting the article, you might consider a request at deletion review if you'd like to pursue this further. Luna Santin 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally it is not a good idea to go putting ALLCAPS commentary on a user's page, no matter how injudicious you feel his or her editing choices have been. I removed the Vernian links at the Steampunk article in light of the discussion at AfD. I urge you to take the article to deletion review and have it looked at there. If people feel the article was incorrectly removed, it can be reinstated and the links that you placed restored. However, as you ill observe in the list, the article is primarily linked to examples that are notable enough for their own entry. If that is decided not to be the case here, they should be removed. Eusebeus 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your frustration, especially since it is obviously something close to your heart. The fact is that there a wide variety of views about what constitutes notability particularly with respect to music/bands. I tend to be on the side of deletion, but there are others who would find my approach too exclusionary. Deletion review is a good venue for you to present your case in the event you feel that AfD was unfair and if a case for notability can be established, then the links at Steampunk have every right to be reestablished. But in the interests if consistency, that should be the first step. I apologise for using the inflammatory word spam - that was unnecessarily inconsiderate. Eusebeus 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and I have posted a deletion review. I am trying to remain alot calmer now, and will handle this issue through the proper channels. This was just one of many things that was hampering my various projects this week. So I have been on edge a bit about them. Thanks again --FACT50 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Let me point out that there are likely many ways you can help around here even if your particular article project doesn't end up succeeding (if for the time being only). I think you will find that most editors are willing to listen and, even if they disagree, be genuinely interested in talking through the points you feel should be raised. Glad to have you as part of the project! Best, Eusebeus 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I approved the deletion because there was at least a weak consensus to delete, and the concerns raised in the deletion debate were not answered. Unfortunately, the argument "if article X exists, so should article Y" isn't valid in the majority of cases. Also, Abney Park (band) doesn't mention Vernian Process as an inspiration, and a MySpace blog entry (no matter what is in it) isn't considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Without multiple sources verifying the band's notability, it doesn't meet the music notability guidelines. You can challenge the deletion at deletion review, if you wish. --Coredesat 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I feel super dorky doing this, but memnbers from Abney Park have mentioned Vernian Process being an inspiration to their project. Posted by Robert the founder of Abney Park. I don't understand how their blogs are less reliable than media however? --FACT50 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs aren't considered reliable sources because they're not third-party sources independent of the subject itself (there's a section on them in WP:RS). We normally only use blogs if they're by a well-known researcher in their given field, and even then only very rarely. --Coredesat 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that Abney Park never mentioned VP as an influence, when there is a valid post from the creator of the band right in front of you. Think about the context you are looking at this with. What you are basically asking (no telling) me to do is to ask Robert politely if he can add a reference on his wikipedia article mentioning my project? That is beyond ridiculous. How is anything on wikipedia more valid than anything on LJ or MySpace? Please answer this for me? --FACT50 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one sentence in a LiveJournal entry doesn't cut it for WP:RS. It would need to be an interview published in an article, or on the band's website (although this wouldn't really be a third-party source). --Coredesat 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that you have a deletion review going on this article already, let's let that proceed, since it just started. The other sources you presented might make a case for WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-punk

Actually, if you can, you might want to focus on post-punk revival first, which is really sparse right now. That's a page where more certainly needs to be written. WesleyDodds 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

1. One of the hard things I've found it hard trying to figure out is the boundaries between the end of post-punk and and the development of alternative rock, especially since many post-punk bands (The Cure, New Order, the Banshees) outlived the post-punk era and/or changed their styles, placing them under the alternative genre. It's hard to often do this since little has been written on the subject. However, with what has been written on it there are some clear points of reference we can rely on. R.E.M., the Smiths, Husker Du, the Replacements, and the Jesus and Mary Chain are bands that are generally considered to have helped founded alternative rock, creating a movement that developed out of and succeeded post-punk and hardcore punk. While it's impossible to distinctly say "this is the first alternative band" at some point alternative replaces post-punk as the dominant force on the indie scene in the 1980s. So pretty much any underground band that emerged after, say, the mid-80s is classified as alternative rock and probably doesn't need to be covered by the post-punk article or related pages. Usually it's easier to determine this if a band belongs to a clearly definable alternative subgenre (then again, gothic rock started out with a bunch of post-punk bands but is pretty much universally considered an alt-rock subgenre; oh well).

2. If the link you put on the post-punk page is a site you yourself own, I'm afraid it doesn't belong per Wikipedia:External links. If someone else thinks it's an appropriate external resource and decides to add it back, that's fine, but you yourself can't add it. You certainly meant no harm, but it's standard policy in order to cut down on spam that tends to plague External Links sections. WesleyDodds 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand with the Stone Roses. Even though I'm a huge fan, I've only heard "So Young" once, a song they quickly disowned and then went to straight-on "indie" with their second single "Sally Cinnamon". I like the idea of the list, but let's not try to add too many artists to it, since a lot would fit fine under alternative anyway and it might edge towards original research if we're not careful. But I think it works best for for the likes of Felt, Big Black (Steve Albini loves his early PIL and Sisters of Mercy), the early phases of certain shoegaze bands like MBV, and so forth. Maybe Sonic Youth and Jane's Addiction could be added; SY drew from No Wave but formed after the movement burned out, and Dave Navarro's biggest influences are Bauhaus and the Banshess, to the point where he's said he's always considered his band to be a "masculine version of the Banshees". Conversely, the Smiths don't belong; they're widely viewed, especially in England, as the first "indie" band (the British term for alternative rock) and were viewed to be a rejection of the post-punk and New Wave aethestics. In many ways, they're the British R.E.M. (in fact, I've got an R.E.M. bio on hand that talks about the constant comparisons that were made between the two when they first started). I read a reprint of an article on them by Jon Savage from about the time of release of "This Charming Man" that focused on how much of a fresh sound they were at the time. And yes, Morrissey bitches a lot, but he's been pretty vocal about his disdain for Joy Division and the Cure. WesleyDodds 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Cool name. Wish I'd tough of it; (humph) - Coil00 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Forgottenage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Forgottenage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vp-promopic copy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vp-promopic copy.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Catalystsep1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Catalystsep1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beholdthemachine.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beholdthemachine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Image:Vplogo1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vplogo1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vernian Process

I thought I'd drop a note in about getting the entry back up and running. I think it is on the cusp of surviving a deletion review but we'd want to make sure it made it so some thoughts:

Start it in your sandbox
We can help edit it up until it is looking solid.
We can find WP:RS to back up WP:N and WP:V. For example I have checked on other projects and a blanket "no blogs" doesn't work under the guidelines: WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources. If we can be sure that the blog comments are by the people who they say they are (which we can be as they are here) then things like them saying who their inspiration is on a blog is as good as an interview - see comments here. So Abney Park saying you inspired them can be sourced legitimately.
We invite people who voted to delete the entry to provide feedback on the entry in the Sandbox. If you can get a consensus approving it before it is moved to the main entry it should sial through a deletion review this time.

Granted it might take a bit longer but I do think it is worthwhile and going this route should mean that it sticks this time - third time lucky ;) I'm going to be away from the computer for a while but you don't really need my input/feedback for a bit anyway if you want to get things rolling. (Emperor 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/c/User_talk%7EFACT50_fa68.html"