Talk:Jestofunk

Driveby tags added
Re this edit, could User:Srobak please explain from what source this is closely paraphrased, providing comparison of the two? As far as notability, there is significant coverage of the band in reliable sources, not all of which have been used here yet because they are mostly in languages I do no understand. Also, per WP:BAND, they have sold 50,000 copies of their album in Italy ("Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.") and have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". They have also been included on notable compilation albums (although to be fair to Srobak, this has not yet been mentioned in the article).-- Beloved Freak  09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were going to ask the same questions on here that you did in my talk page, why did you bother posting them in my talk page? WP:MOS
 * Anyhow... I did not conduct that edit, however I did the one prior to that. Close paraphrasing from this and is self-explanatory. The article is new (13:43, February 6, 2011 Belovedfreak (talk | contribs) (2,221 bytes) (start article)) and has not been reviewed. 1 or 2 mentions even in industry rags over the span of 18 years does not necessarily equate to  notability, though Gold status certainly helps that. Though I might add that your quoted ambiguity above makes it seem as though you (or your quote sources) are not entirely convinced of their notability either.  Just one perspective.  Srobak (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry it was the wrong diff, I have corrected that now. I wanted to let you know at your talkpage in case you weren't watching this page, and to mention the "new and unreviewed" tag as I didn't think it was directly relevant to the article content. But that's fine, I'll keep it all here now. Since when do all new article get the "new and unreviewed" tag slapped on them? I am even more perplexed given the fact that you appear to have reviewed the article yourself, hence the tagging. Perhaps you would like me to seek feedback at WP:RFF? Perhaps after starting hundreds of articles that no one has sought to delete or tag-bomb I am being overconfident. I called it "drive by" tagging, by the way, because you didn't take the time to stop here and discuss the issues (notice the tag says "see talkpage for details".)


 * I don't think the close paraphrasing tag is self-explanatory. For one thing, it wasn't clear which source was the problem. You need to point out the specific part that is concerning you, unless you think the whole thing has been copied? Is it "The album sold 50,000 copies in Italy."? There are not many ways you can state that fact. You could say "In Italy, 50,000 copies of the album were sold", and it would still be close paraphrasing. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know, or by all means feel free to actually edit the article yourself.


 * I'm going to remove the tags now. The "new and unreviewed" template is meant for articles by new and inexperienced editors. If you want someone to review it more than you have done, please just ask someone to, or go to somewhere like WP:RFF. I am happy that the band is notable; if I wasn't I wouldn't have started the article. If you disagree, that's fine, please feel free to take it to WP:AFD. I'll leave the close-paraphrasing tag to give you time to respond to my comments. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as snappish/irritable but it's quite annoying to spend a bit of time and effort actually trying to add something to the encyclopedia and have someone come and drop a few tags on it with no explanation.-- Beloved Freak  17:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take it from your silence that you have nothing further to add to the discussion. i'm removing the other tag.-- Beloved Freak  14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated my reasons above. I'm sorry if they do not meet with your satisfaction. Me re-stating them will not likely change that fact. Stubbing the article. Srobak (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to restate your opinion, but I was hoping you'd respond to my request above for clarification. There is only one sentence taken from the Billboard article: "The album sold 50,000 copies in Italy." As I said, I don't think there is any way to convey that information which would not be close paraphrasing. I believe this is one of the cases where close paraphrasing is permitted because there is only a limited number of ways to say that the album sold over 50,000 copies. (And yes, I'm aware that's an essay I just linked to, but it better explains what I'm trying to say.) Just to let you know, I have asked for other opinions at the Copyright Cleanup project and hope for some clarification, either way. In the mean time,  stub the article if you wish, or add back the tag. Or, considering it's just one sentence, perhaps you could fix the problem yourself, if you can find a way to avoid close paraphrasing? -- Beloved  Freak  20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From a paraphrasing standpoint, this seems fine. If there were close following of additional content, there might be a concern, but this is pretty much formulaic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)