User talk:Blz 2049/Archive 3

Waterpistol
I've sorted the formatting out and added links in the dump. I'll be back when its time comes on the collaboration of the week. In the meantime, do anything you think is necessary. Rafablu88 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll let you lead and sort things as they come or anything else I feel is necessary that has been missed. Enjoy the spotlight. RB88 (T) 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used pretty much all the sources found. Hopefully you'll find the editions for the interviews and stuff to expand it. Let me know if you need any more assistance. RB88 (T) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter
Hello, you may have recently encountered some problems from the Edit Filter; a regex in one of the filters I wrote was not working properly, and inadvertently tagged several of your edits as vandalism. It may have also removed your autoconfirmed status. I wanted to let you know that the filter has been disabled, and all actions taken by the filter should have been reverted. If you are still experiencing difficulty editing, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks, and I'm very sorry for the mixup. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I told ya I'd be back... lol
Hey, I've just nominated Intimacy Remixed over at GAN and would appreciate one of your thorough and fast reviews like on Silent Alarm Remixed. They're essentially the same although this one is slightly shorter due to lack of sourcing, mainly because of a lack of a detailed press release like last time. Your efforts would be much appreciated. Cheers. RB88 (T) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You sir, are a ledge (i.e. "legend")! I was actually wondering if I was gonna have to slog on One Beat alone in the next few days. Phew. RB88 (T) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm heading in for the night. Cheers for the the amazing review speediness. Laters. RB88 (T) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)]


 * Off for the night. Good job. RB88 (T) 23:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Slip GA review
I think I've addressed or commented on your notes for the GA review of The Slip. So take a look! Drewcifer (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take another look dude! Drewcifer (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA review! My eventual goal with the article is to bring it to FAC, so I've nominated it at peer review to get a few more opinions.  If there's anything else you had to say/complain about the article, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know here.  Thanks again!  And next time you've got something up at GAN, feel free to ping me and hopefully I can save you the month-long wait for a review. Drewcifer (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dougherty Valley High School map
I can try something, though it may take a couple weeks - is that OK? From looking at the Dougherty Valley High School article, it seems like the map could be made with regular labels (not wikilinked lables) like Millennium Park's map. (Just to be clear, I did not see any features on the map that would need to be wikilinks - did I miss anything?). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have the buildings and the sports venues on the draft map - how much detail do you want on parking lots and roads and such? (As you might guess, it is much easier and faster to have less detail.) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the base map (finally). What do you want labeled? Does anything need to be changed / fixed? I know there are some areas that are really housing or sidewalk that I have green here, but this is about as good as I can get it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I labeled it and uploaded it here - you may have to WP:BYC to see the new version. Once you let me know it is OK, I will upload it Commons and delete it here (but keep the name the same). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is on Commons now, if there is a better category, please feel free to add it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flocabulary
A tag has been placed on Flocabulary, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ithizar (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Back Cover of In Utero.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Back Cover of In Utero.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Computer
Hey, glad to see you back. So are you taking OK Computer to FA status? By the way, I removed the review template; it's optional and isn't all that great for summary purposes, especially when the goal is to be broad and comprehensive in the coverage instead of itemizing everything (which would be impossible with an album this widely-reviewed). It's also the same reason the accolades template should probably go. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Computer
Hello. OK Computer is almost a consummate article, but there's only one issue. The article doesn't use sources from ''Radiohead's OK Computer. 33⅓ series'', so it doesn't become comprehensive. Our libraries don't have that book, can you obtain it? TGilmour (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh kay komp puu ter
I should have some free time coming up next week. Let me know what sort of assistance you need. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My gut instinct is to say to mention that there was a tour and sum it up in a few sentences in the release section, and leave the details for a separate article on said tour. But I'm open to changing my mind. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, looks like the other editor helping out with the article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. How far along do you think you are? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I forgot about your help with In Utero (thanks again, by the way). As a major contributor, I figure I should ask you to chime in on the mine and Koavf's debate about using date and duration templates in that article. You can check out the article history and our recent comments each other's talk pages for the rundown. A new viewpoint would be appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was curious as to why you changed the plain book refs to reference templates. Given there's a consistent citation style long-established for the article, there's no need to change it per the reference guidelines, and I for one find the templates cumbersome to use. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the same thoughts on the Kid A book, which I found very chin-stroking and pretentious. Still, are you sure there is nothing of value in the book, including in regards to musical/lyrical themes? It might be good to go over it again just to definitively rule it out as a useful source. As for the cites, the style shouldn't be changed suddenly, per CITEVAR. Obviously you are the primary contributor to the page, but I know I definitely and Indopug most likely found the old style easier to work with whenever we needed to cite something. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, as a reader I feel the benefits of the templates are marginal when you can just move the scrollbar slightly to see the books. As an editor I find them quite cumbersome and overly fussy to use when writing everything out is so much easier. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like some of the links need to be updated. Look for anything in the HTTP column that's listed as 0. The chart positions can most likely just be taken from Allmusic, although if I recall, Exit Music might have them, which would avoid the linkrot issue altogether. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you can't find a web archive version of a dead link or if said link wasn't originally a print article, it not longer exists and thus the information it's citing should be removed. If the German chart looks sketchy, go ahead and remove it. You can always ask people at the discography WikiProject for help with sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's looking pretty good now. Still not keen on the change in ref style, though. Anyway, I really need to get to that copy edit job soon. You might need to remind me. Repeatedly. Thursday might be the best time for me to do it. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Godspeed and good luck!
I was lucky enough to negotiate a three month sabbatical before transitioning into the new job I'll be starting next week, which gave me the research time I needed, but also lots of free time in front of a computer. What began as a passing, albeit sincere, interest in editing some Wikipedia pages, really turned into some serious entertainment for me when I realized the extent to which some people incessantly bicker about things that don't really matter. I'm sorry for how long I let it get drawn out, but I honestly couldn't help it...it was just too much fun. So anyway, I do hope you forgive me and know that it was all in good fun. I can tell that this is really important to you guys, so it would be mean on my part to keep antagonizing you over something as petty as a wikipedia article that at the end of the day, I don't really care about. I won't really have time starting next week even if I wanted to, so apologies again, and thanks for the laughs...it was an unexpected source of comedy for me during my break. I did get one last dig in earlier today (again...couldn't help it), but please feel free to go back through and revert everything. You won't have to worry about me teasing you guys anymore. God bless!Mlillybaltimore (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Prog rock
I would seriously trim the acclaim sect and go more towards influence. Its well recorded and more substantial that what critics in post britpop era UK where trying to guess as to was the 'new thing', in fear of loosing their jobs. That was very obvious with the hedged reviews of KID A where reviewers were all about how much they liked it but did not have the words to say why...ie no idea about electonic music. Anyway nice work on the article, its in great shape, kudos. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhh kay computer
Sorry for the delay--personal stuff. Given your revisions I should probably comb through the entire article again, instead of starting where I left off. How soon I can get to another copy edit depends on said personal stuff, but hopefully by next weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rock criticism
Hi Brandt Luke Zorn, your query about contemporary reviews of Blonde on Blonde was stimulating. It reminded me how little serious coverage there was of rock and pop culture in the mid 1960s. The inception of Rolling Stone in November '67 announced a new breed of college educated rock critics, who then moved into mainstream journalism. As Robert Christgau notes in this history of rock criticism, prior to 1967, Al Aronowitz in the New York Post and Ralph Gleason in the San Francisco Chronicle were perhaps the only two critics with an interest in the burgeoning rock culture and regular slots. Paul Williams started Crawdaddy! in 1966. Christgau began at Esquire in 1967, and Ellen Willis arrived at The New Yorker in 1968. John Rockwell didn’t arrive at The New York Times until 1970, I think.

On a subjective level, I remember that here in London the music critic of The Times, William Mann, caused a furore when he wrote about the Beatles' music in December 1963, praisng their "pandiatonic clusters" and "Aeolian cadence". By 1967, there were a host of serious critics in English newspapers and journals who acclaimed the release of Sgt. Pepper as a major cultural event. A lot of this mid 60s criticism is still elusive because it isn't online, which makes it difficult to cite in WP. Best wishes Mick gold (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Paranoid Android
Hey Brandt, as I mentioned before, guidelines state you're not supposed to completely changed an article's already established ref style. There's really no reason to do this, especially with an FA. And as I found as someone who helped you with the article back in The Day, the template format you changed it to looked very cluttered when you open the edit window--it was very hard for me to make sense of it. I've reverted to the old style for the article, and I'll go back and clean up any messes I left behind. But this is something you really should avoid doing if an article already has an established ref style. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on linking to streamed copies of albums
Wikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited OK Computer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Pig-pen peanuts.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pig-pen peanuts.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mabdul 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what you get
Congrats on the Featured Article promotion of OK Computer! I still want to work on the remaining issues from the FAC, but all around smashing job, my good man! WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Casting Crowns FA
First off, thanks for commenting on the nomination - its great to have someone with FA experience on albums give some things to fix. I've addressed your concerns on the page, so feel free to respond whenever you feel like it. Thanks again. :)  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Highway 61 Revisited
Hi Brandt Luke Zorn, you were helpful when we launched our Blonde on Blonde FAC, so I though I'd mention that Highway 61 is now on the road. best, Mick gold (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for support, Brandt! We really appreciate it. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/archive1
I saw your comment on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Much of that context you suggest is in the article Pregnancy from rape. Do you think it would help the article to import that? The way I handled it was to place a See Also link, and start the section by telling the reader it was a "medically inaccurate contention". What are your thoughts. I am certainly not against it, given that it is important context. I just wanted your thoughts. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I added an explanatory note. Would love to know what you think. Thanks again for the comments.

Hey
Drop me an email sometime, I've got article stuff to share with you. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! GA Review
Hey, thanks for reviewing the article. I've responded to your suggestions.  Et 3  rnal  17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake image
On the Harlem Shake image you uploaded as free, I've got a small concern that while the uploader of that video states its PD, the video is tagged with the standard YT license that presumes copyright. Its possible to get the uploader to change that license but assuming they can't/won't, that creates a conflict, so I've raised that question at WP:MCQ, unsure what to do in this situation. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Far Side Virtual
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rain in England
Hi, just letting you know that I reviewed the DYK and everything is good to go. :) Till  12:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
— Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rain in England
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review
Think I solved everything with The College Dropout, check if your points in the review are all solved. igordebraga ≠ 18:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought if I could ask you to take a look at Bleed Like Me, as its current GAR was even interrupted because the reviewer thought it had too many prose issues... igordebraga ≠ 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Heart of a Woman FAC
Hi Brandt, I addressed your few comments ; would you mind taking a look and seeing if they're acceptable? Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I have another Angelou article up at FAC, and it's suffering from possibly being failed due to lack of support. Since you weighed in on the above, would you mind taking a look at this one? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Slint - Spiderland back cover.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Slint - Spiderland back cover.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * And thanks for bringing this up to such high quality before nominating; it's one of the few reviews I've ever done where no further work on the article was required to meet the criteria. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rain in England
I hope you don't mind my reviewing two of your articles back-to-back, but I've begun the GA review for Rain in England, and would like your thoughts on a few small points. Thanks for your work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

TFAR
I suggested "your" "Today" for TFA, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Slay Tracks (1933–1969)
This is a note to let the main editors of Slay Tracks (1933–1969) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 17, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 17, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Slay Tracks (1933–1969) is the debut extended play (EP) by the American indie rock band Pavement. The group, then consisting of founding members Stephen Malkmus (pictured in 2005) and Scott Kannberg, recorded Slay Tracks with producer and future member Gary Young during a four-hour session on January 17, 1989. The EP was released as a 7" vinyl record on the band's own record label Treble Kicker. The music in Slay Tracks is influenced by indie and punk rock bands, including Swell Maps and The Fall, and many of the lyrics are inspired by life in the band's hometown of Stockton, California. Although only 1000 copies were pressed, the EP became an underground hit. Most of its initial reviews were from independently produced zines, and it met with generally positive reactions. The songs on Slay Tracks would later appear on the 1993 compilation Westing (By Musket and Sextant), reaching a wider audience than the EP's limited initial release. The release of Slay Tracks was significant to Pavement's signing to Drag City, and later to Matador Records. All of the songs from it were played live throughout Pavement's history. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  today and tonight

Thank you for quality articles such as Slay Tracks (1933–1969) and Smashing Pumpkins songs Today and Tonight, for a pure user page mentioning only articles, quality and people, for and bringing an article "up to such high quality before nominating ... where no further work ... was required to meet the criteria", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Today today, precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 726th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 726 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Spiderland
Just letting you know that I made a TFA request for one of your featured articles, Spiderland, to be presented on March 27. Minima ©  ( talk ) 13:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Spiderland
This is a note to let the main editors of Spiderland know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 27, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 27, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Spiderland is the second and final studio album by American rock band Slint (lead singer Brian McMahan pictured). It was released on March 27, 1991, through Touch and Go Records. Featuring dramatically alternating dynamics and vocals ranging from spoken word to shouting, the album contains narrative lyrics that emphasize alienation. Spiderland was Slint's first release on Touch and Go, and the group's last record. The title originated from McMahan's younger brother, who thought that the record sounded "spidery". Although Spiderland was not widely recognized on its initial release, it eventually sold more than 50,000 copies and became a landmark album in underground music after Slint broke up. Its popularity increased in part after the appearance of the track "Good Morning, Captain" on the soundtrack to the 1995 film Kids. The album has been highly influential on the styles of many bands in the post-rock and math rock genres, including Mogwai and Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and has been named a favorite of several indie rock musicians. In 2007, Slint reunited for a tour consisting of performances of Spiderland in its entirety. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Greed (film) at FAC
Greed is languishing at the bottom of the list with only one support (mine) and not much commentary. Just thought I'd see if you would contenance a return visit to continue your earlier review comments? Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual
I was wondering today what ever happened to this article's FAC, as I hadn't heard anything in a while, and saw that it had been archived. I'm sorry about that; are you interested in renominating it? If so, ping me and I'll come over. Tezero (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Future reviews
Hey BLZ—I'm interested in your oeuvre, so please ping me in the future if you're ever looking for reviewers czar ♔   04:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)
This is a note to let the main editors of Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 18, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 18, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Today" is a song by American alternative rock band The Smashing Pumpkins, written by lead vocalist and guitarist Billy Corgan (pictured in 2010). "Today" was released in September 1993 as the second single from the band's second album and major label debut, Siamese Dream. The song, seemingly upbeat, contains dark lyrics. Corgan wrote it about a day when he had suicidal thoughts, exemplified by the reference to self-mutilation in the chorus. However, the contrast between the grim subject matter of the song and the soft instrumental part during the verses, coupled with use of irony in the lyrics, left many listeners unaware of the song's tale of depression and desperation. Although Corgan opted for "Cherub Rock", the lead single from the album, to be the opening track, "Today" and its follow-up "Disarm" are credited in Allmusic for popularizing the band and "sen[ding] [Siamese Dream] into the stratosphere". "Today" has been generally well received by critics, and in an article about the song in Blender it was described as having "achieved a remarkable status as one of the defining songs of its generation, perfectly mirroring the fractured alienation of American youth in the 1990s."

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading the article! It was well-done and it hits the right points. Thanks for all of your work.  Royal broil  12:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DVHSwildcat.png
 Thanks for uploading File:DVHSwildcat.png. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!


We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox; thanks! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flocabulary.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Flocabulary.PNG. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)