This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelpin (talk | contribs) at 13:36, 18 September 2007 (→Archived Talk Pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:36, 18 September 2007 by Kelpin (talk | contribs) (→Archived Talk Pages)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
xC | ☎ 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Same editor
They're both in the same range editing the same article on the same day. They're clearly the same.--Rambutan (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Advice
First off, thanks for coming to me :-) - I appreciate it. The tag you are looking for: {{subst:notaforum}}. That's the warning on discussion pages. It's best right at the top, eye catching.
To tell users off for being naughty, here is the warnings {{subst:uw-chat1}}. If they continue to post off topic just keep going up in increments of one, e.g. {{subst:uw-chat2}}. I hope this helps, friend! And well done for being dedicated to the project. Tell me how you get on. Scarian 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The Answer to The Answer
Your cleanup has been noble. There are still lots of issues with the page. No refs for anything... the lead claims sales figures but has no inlines to support them. Plus the line "They are tipped for big things from many in the rock music industry." is straight weasel words... and poorly written weasel words at that. :D . The History section is much better than it was but still needs lots of cleanup. The first 2 sentences of the sections opening paragraph are both run-ons. No encyclopedia article should use first name references in its text(unless its about 2 brothers or 2 people with the same last name) This article uses the first names of all the bands members like they're next door neighbours. "James had a burning desire to follow his own muse"?????? How encyclopedic is that line? The whole history section reads TOO familiar. Too loose. The choice of wording needs to be gone over and 'encyclopedic' terms substituted for teen slang. "Gigs" are "concerts" or "performances"... "trawled through the ranks of everyone they knew in the Northern Irish music scene in their search for the ultimate rock voice" = "auditioned many vocalists from the Northern Ireland music scene in search of a specific vocal style that matched the bands music" (or whatever?). "building up a set The Answer could really rock with".... please!!!
Other issues are.... there's a trivia section which = ugly... The discography section uses images that are not fair-use... the source of the image in the infobox is questionable and the licensing is incomplete... The external links section contains a link to a discussion group.... lots of little things that need to either be repaired or deleted completely.
Can you see where I am coming from? It's like I tell everyone (or quote directly in my edit summaries WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, WP:AWW, WP:MoS.... read these, study these, know these like the back of your own hand... and every article you edit will be better when you are finished. And, as far as music articles go... style-wise... read WP:MUSTARD... it's all in there.
Hope that wasn't too harsh. And hope it helps. Should you decide to keep working on it... it can only be for the better. The article needs a lot of work. BTW... I noticed a couple of editors who seem to be fairly regular showups in the articles edit history... Hopefully they(one in particular) don't try to assist you since ne of them is a self-ordained music expert who couldn't fill a thimble with his so-called "expert musical knowledge" :D ... but I digress.
Good luck with your article. And drop a line anytime you have any questions. I will gladly help... or at least point you in the right direction to someone who can. Have a nice day!!! 156.34.142.110 19:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may have it :-D You did some good work there. If you ever need any help and Libsey is busy then feel free to bug me. Take care (Have a good day at work. I'll pop in from time to time throughout the day if you need any help, friend). Scarian 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Barclay's
I thought the I.P. did, working in London and all. Feel free to revert any damage he may have done then. I got an 'E' in my A Level Business Studies course so I'm in no position to make an educated judgement on the situation. How are you today? Scarian 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Those are highly respectable qualifications, I'd say you know quite a lot! :-) Scarian 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to bed, I didn't get very many hours sleep last night so it's an early night. You guys stay late at your offices, huh?! I'll try and keep an eye on it, friend. Take care. Scarian 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed it - you need to put the </ref> tags inside the === tags.--Rambutan (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fix
- just needed to be closed :-) Take care! Scarian 18:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, you could indeed, if numerous verifiable sources printed, write how it seemed a bit 'injust'... You just gotta report it as 'Criticism of the decision' or something like that... but, in all honesty, it'd be difficult to write that sort of thing without seeming bias. Could try it though! Scarian 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Archival
Could you consider archiving your talkpage? It's getting a bit long!! :-) Rambutan (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Category: