User talk:Michig/Archive2

Your recent proposed deletions[edit]

I have deprodded several articles that you recently proposed for deletion. Some of these would clearly not be uncontroversial deletions (international Rugby League player, world champion freestyle skier, for example). Could you please use prod a little more judiciously in future, and could you always provide a concern when proposing articles, so that other editors know why you are proposing them. Thanks.--Michig 09:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig,

A huge number (6000) of articles are listed at User:Eagle_101/potential_crap_3/4. These articles were prodded because they were listed there. I'm not about to put that in the edit summary, however. I don't want anyone to feel insulted that their articles were proposed for deletion because they are "potential crap". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right not to put that in the edit summary. You should however have a better reason for proposing deletion than 'some other editor has put it in a list of articles they think are "potential crap"'. A good number of the articles that you proposed for deletion shouldn't have been proposed at all - they just need work improving format, references, etc.. Nominating articles such as these is likely to annoy other editors just as much as saying that they are "potential crap", not to mention wasting the time of other editors who review the nominations and deprod them.--Michig 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig,

You stated, "A good number of the articles that you proposed for deletion shouldn't have been proposed at all". If that's your opinion, that's fine, but that's not mine. I'm usually an inclusionist, but these are mainly scraping the bottom of the barrel. The time "wasted" removing a prod tag is negligible: what really takes time is bringing these articles up to snuff. If that's what you want to do, that's great, but keep in mind there are thousands of these. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Chin[edit]

Thanks for sorting that out. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Michig (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years back I video'd Clive speaking at an NYU class on dub, I'll get around to putting it up sometime. His creative partnership with engineer Errol Thompson fell apart when Joe Gibbs hired Thompson away - Clive's dad wouldn't match the offer. An otherwise totally genial man, he still seemed a little bitter.Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dipper (band)[edit]

Hi, thanks for your messgae regarding the Big Dipper (band) article. I deleted the article following this Articles for Deletion discussion:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Dipper (band). The only actual content in the article was - Big Dipper was a band from Boston, Massachusetts. - and had been like that since its creation in October. As such the article made no assertion of importance and could have been speedy deleted. It would be great if you could create a new article on the band which meets WP:MUSIC with reliable sources and I will restore the history of the article if that is done but see little purpose in restoring it at the moment as the article was practically useless. Let me know and hope to be able to do that soon! Davewild (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say great work on this article. Davewild (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linder Sterling - Cemetry/Cemetery[edit]

Hello - your bot corrected the spelling of 'Cemetry' in this article here, but the original spelling was correct as that is how Morrissey spelled in in his song title. No big problem, but I was just wondering if there was a way to 'tag' such spellings so they don't get corrected by your bot (or others). I've added 'sic' afterwards, which will hopefully prevent manual 'corrections'. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, thanks for that, and sorry for the miscorrection. I've added the spelling in that article to my bot's exception list so it won't try to correct it again. Adding sic after the unusual spelling is a good approach. Human bot supervisors will (or should! :) ) notice it and leave the offending word alone. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasut[edit]

On clean-up patrol, I came across this article. Opening it, I found the huge tag you placed. I think I understand your reasons, and ask that you now take the steps promised (the tag indicates that material will be deleted in one week if action is not taken by the copyright holder, or something like that). It has actually been two weeks; if you could delete the offending material, I may be able to clean up whatever is left (assuming that there is something left). Cheers! Unschool (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More copyright violations?[edit]

Hmmm, I know that this is a bit strange, my second post to you in less than an hour. But that big copyright tag you placed on Lasut? I think another might be in order. I went to the next article in the cleanup list, Leva Patil, and found it to be so unintelligible that I did not know for sure what it was about. I began googling for some background, when I came across this. Sure as it's Christmas Eve, the Leva Patil article looks lifted from that page, word for word (at least the intro). So my first question is, would you concur that this is also a copyright violation, fit to be tagged? Secondly, does one need to be an admin to tag such an article? If not, could you direct me where to learn about the policies on tagging copyright violations?

Appreciate your help. Unschool (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Taped an appearance"[edit]

This is a commonly used expression, and exactly describes what Nirvana did. (I believe you're taking the word "taped" far too literally - their performance includes them in the act of taping.) There's absolutely no reason to change the wording (especially when the new wording switches to the passive verb).

For comparison:

Google: taped a performance Google: taped an appearance

If you want to take this farther, bring it up on the Discussion page for the article so that the other editors can have a say. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote that before I saw your post.

"it's poor English" - Um, says who? -- ChrisB (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. "Their performance includes them in the act of taping" is also nonsense. Sorry.--Michig (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to do a little bit better than "I do." Like I said - if it's that important, take it up in Discussion. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could search that well known guide to grammar, Google, to support my case, but frankly I've got better things to do. I made a small improvement to the article and it wasn't appreciated. So be it. It's not important enough to me to spend any more time on it.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "edit warring" as a generic term :-) Sorry for any confusion. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pama Records[edit]

Interesting article. Thanks! Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a long list of reggae-related articles to create/work on over the next few months, WP being a bit lacking in this area. Let me know if there's anything you want me to add to the list. Cheers.--Michig (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock[edit]

Thanks for making those catches. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Michig (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenfield[edit]

Thanks for the edit.. did wonder as I wrote it.. but that's what this exercise is about. Lets see what editors think of the replacement. Thanks also for the image. Ever onward Tricia or even Tricianeal (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Scene That Celebrates Itself[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scene That Celebrates Itself, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scene That Celebrates Itself. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]