User talk:EXCLEY

Image tagging for Image:060705 massiveattack.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:060705 massiveattack.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive Attack
I have undone your changes as I don't think they added to the article. Also, please remember to assume good faith with regard to others' edits. I suggest bringing your proposed changes to Talk:Massive Attack and trying to build consensus for them there. Best wishes, --John 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Preview a page first, please!
Jesus, so many of your edits... Don't you know there is such thing as "Preview" button?...;-) You don't have to save an article after each word corrected. Try to preview a page first and see if you could add additional correction, and not sooner before you're done hit "Save page".

And consider perhaps creating a user page?... – Kochas (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:060705 massiveattack.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:060705 massiveattack.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell babelfish 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi, I acidentally noted that your use of the 'minor edit' checkbox is a bit much. In general, anything that adds content or anything that other editors might want to contest is not minor. I would like to ask you to use it less. See also Help:Minor edit, a clear-cut guide for this functionality. -- Pepve 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Paintingofrobertandgrantofmassiveattack.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Paintingofrobertandgrantofmassiveattack.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive Attack cleanup
Hi, as you have seen I am attempting to cleanup this article with the aim of moving to WP:Good article status. I aim to first tidy prose and fit to the WP:Manual of Style (music). I will be attempting to reference correctly all the statements, those which cannot be referenced will have to be removed, see WP:Verifiability. If I trash something by accident, or you disagree with my edits, please leave notes on the article talk page so that we can work together to improve. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sir... as you've probably gathered I was responsible for most of the current incarnation you're working on... I knew it did need re-editing or structuring in places but hoped that most of the actual substance would stay in so far as it was a great deal more pertinent and revealing than what was there before... I'm sure you're far more up on all the numerous wiki protocols and so forth... perhaps you can figure out a way of putting a decent picture up that isn't a crappily distant live shot... the policy on image usage is a bit OTT in my op...EXCLEY (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Excley, I haven't had much time recently to work on Massive Attack, but I noticed that you had queried the removeal of the word seminal. Seminal is one of those weasel words which adds a specific point of view to an article.  Now if one was to say that Rolling Stone magazine (just to take a random example) described Massive Attack as one of the seminal groups of the 90s and back it up with a citation, that would be OK.  This is an encyclopaedia.  It is OK to quote other people's opinions in a balanced manner, but it is not OK to put in opinions.  I hope that this makes things clearer. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits per WP:V and WP:EL. --John (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On external links
It's great that you put so much effort in the article on Massive Attack, but please follow Wikipedia guidelines when editing, like WP:EXTERNAL: do not add fansites to the external links section. It doesn't add anything, and if a user would want to find a MA fansites, that's as easy as typing in "massive attack fansite" in any search engine. Thanks, and happy editing. -- Soetermans |  drop me a line  |  what I'd do now?  13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've read that rule now... Inflightdata.com deleted too then by that logic

'LP6', the purpose of discographies, and edit-warring
This album has not been recorded yet - please don't remove sourced content stating this from the article. It doesn't belong in the discography until there is at least some certaintly that it is being recorded - a discography is a list of releases by a band. Please also see WP:3RR - you're very close to violating this. Consensus on the talk page appears to be against you - please gain consensus there rather than reverting again. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The album has started already though I admit I've no source for that. So okay I guess once its provably started then it can be reverted again, this does mean though that many hundreds / thousands of wiki pages are 'wrong' listing unsourced future albums TBA in discography sections (even though these are almost all totally uncontentious). I wasn't trying to get war-like, just wanted the precise reasoning. Not sure what you mean by consensus against me, the talk page above refers to things from years ago, its still mainly a page I wrote, then tidied by someone else, subsequently edited and remains fairly unvandalised last time I checked, but alright.

I could have sourced that stuff about Del Naja's reliability regarding album ETA's quite easily though, he more or less acknowledges it in the same article I think. EXCLEY (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Once again, I've undone a bunch of your edits. Please cite sources for your edits, and contribute to the talk page. And please don't mark your edits as minor when they aren't. Cheers. --John (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking
I love being reverted months.

Explanation of changes:

• Putting UK in the first sentence as that is where they are from. There is more than one Bristol in the world. Plus, not "England" but "United Kingdom" as "England" is unencyclopeadic, even though used wrongly on many wiki pages in my view. Abbreviated to "UK" - obvious. Or so I thought.

• "Necessarily" next to "…working alongside" to indicate the fact that are dependent on co-producers to function. "As well as…" better syntax.

• The full names of the group's original members - simply fact

• Heligoland era to Weather Underground / Heligoland era - more accurate

Etc, etc.

Major stuff, eh!

• 2010-present section - source for Spinner and other bits added (yes on this point alone I admit was lazy not adding source, just hoped someone else would bother rather than row it all back months, though it was being lazy in that way that got the page redone with more detail - someone coming along and sourcing the knowledge rather than assuming it is false or taking extreme reversion action that amounts to that.)

Some tweaks to headings that just seem better. Like when I described Del Naja's 100th Window as 'unilateral' I decided it was better not to use that term. Etc.

So yep seismic changes there.

And everything else really is minor. If it is not, tell me how so. Or challenge something specifically??

So am just slightly amending how it was rather than going back months and doing it all again, hoping that such action doesn't become a war or anything. Ta. EXCLEY (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also since I don't do much talking... I don't know if I need to put this on the main page's discussion page also..? EXCLEY (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You definitely do. --John (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And please read Help:Minor edit to see what is and isn't considered as minor. --John (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)