User talk:Ikara

Welcome!
Hello, Ryu Ike, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm RyRy5, recent changes patroller and part of the welcoming committee. I've been editing here for a while now and I decided to welcome you since your new here. We are here to help build Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Just don't vandalize or else you will be blocked. Well, I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any questions you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. If you have any questrions about using Wikipedia, please feel free to ask at the help desk. Here are a few good links for newcomers like you: If you think you need a tutor, you should consider adoption by an experienced user. I hope you enjoy editing here and being Wikipedian! By the way, you should always sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; or by clicking. And don't be afraid to talk to others, we are all kind here. :) If you have any questions, see the help pages or you can click here to leave me a new message on my talkpage. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help desk

Date autoformatting
Please note that it's no longer encouraged; see MOSNUM. TONY  (talk)  08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

as ofs
I agree that they should be kept until emptied, but adding 2010-2012 will only encourage people to use them (and conversely keeping years like 1910 active). If &#91;[As of 2012]] produces a red link, people know not to use them, otherwise we'll be fighting an uphill battle... Paulbrock (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While the old "as of" links should be removed, delisting them from WP:As of does not stop people using them, and means we can't track them as easily. However, once the pages such as &#91;[as of 2012]] have been deleted, then by all means remove them from WP:As of, as they are no longer in use. When I reverted your edits, the pages still existed and needed watching. – Ikara talk → 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we need to delete &#91;[As of x]] as well as delist them; I've left 1990,1992 and 2009 for now in case people spot a gap in the sequence and wonder where they are... Decade barriers seem a sensible cut-off, so I'll try and do the same again once 1990-99 are clear. Paulbrock (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, since all the pages have now been deleted I removed them from WP:As of again. It would be helpful if we could clear out all the months up to 2005 as well. Your approach seems sensible and effective, thanks – Ikara talk → 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pendulum
I'm assuming you're heavily involved with a lot of Pendulum's articles. Have you considered their allmusic entry at link? From there you can go to individual albums / singles / EPs / charts (US Billboard). Any albums that have professional reviews can have their ratings added to relevant infoboxes. If using comments from a review in an article make sure you use proper quoting.

You're specific request was for personnel on "Another Planet / Voyager", I can't help with that but I found their personnel for the album Hold Your Colour at another link.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another Planet / Voyager" reassessment
Per your request for reassessment: I will do so, but remember that you can self-assess up to and including B-class: so you get to assess the rest of the Pendulum articles, in that you are far more expert in their content than I am. If you think an article is good enough you can propose it for Good Article status. From what I've seen of the Pendulum articles they appear to be Start to almost C-class. With some more effort in the Lead section and tidying up elsewhere they could be B-class.

I have self-assessed a number of my own edits (up to and including B-class) and usually leave a comment indicating self-assessment in the relevant place as well as in the edit summary.

Other editors can change your assessment if they disagree but they should leave comments to justify their changes.

The assessment grid I use has been adapted from an album assessment grid I'd seen in one of my edit's talkpage and is NOT a compulsory grid: i.e. you don't have to use it if you don't want to. I find it helps editors of an article see where they can improve (including myself).

You've seen the singles/song grid that I use but the base grid for albums looks like (for a C-class album that needs more work in readability to become B-class):

Start class:
 * A reasonably complete infobox
 * A lead section giving an overview of the album
 * A track listing
 * Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
 * Categorisation at least by artist and year

C class:
 * All the start class criteria
 * A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
 * At least one other section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
 * A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
 * A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.
 * Independent in-line references supporting major/controversial claims

B class:
 * All the C class criteria
 * A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
 * A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
 * No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
 * No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS;

Note: some Pendulum articles may fail at Start class (second point) due to a poor Lead section: little content and/or doesn't summarise entire article. Hence they would be Stub class for some editors.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hesitant to self-assess?
I know the feeling, but you could start with assessing others as a good way to learn about writing better articles yourself, eventually you get less biased at self-assessment (at least, I hope I have). Also assessing gives back to wikipedia by providing editors some advice.

If interested in Australian music you could check WP:AUSMUS and specifically at their B-class articles for more ideas. There is a broad range of quality there: some are clearly not B-class, I've seen Stub dressed as B-class!

If wishing to assess articles then hop into whichever level you like: I started with unassessed ones (where I met some Pendulum stuff) but there's only three or four left there now. So I've moved on to unknown-importance with over 4500 articles. That should keep me busy for the next few years (decades?) I picked these Categories so that I would come across lots of different styles and class levels, very few had comments added. They tend to be done by starting editors or are old articles.

However, I prefer to remain an editor primarily and only do limited numbers of assessments (up to B-class): that's why I'm happy to pass all the rest of the Pendulum works over to you.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As of discussions
I'm sure you have the talk pages watchlisted, but wanted to make sure you were aware of the posts I made here and here, which have further links to the comments I made here, here and here. I think you are the (or one of the) maintainers of the (relatively new) "As of" template (previously deleted in 2006), so that's why I'm leaving the note for you. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. I've left replies at the latter three locations you link to which should make things completely clear. From what I can see though you are perfectly correct in those replies, the links are deprecated and should be replaced with the template, but not outright removed. The present incarnation of the template actually only dates back to July 2008 when I update an older template that output wikilinks. All the best – Ikara talk → 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some how missed this discussion. I've said something there and said I'd tell you about it. I'm getting a bit confused with all the templates and guidelines around. Maybe you could explain the history of all this in that thread? Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left a reply at the discussion supporting the merge (with a suggestion for a new target). With regards to WP:Updating information and its various associated templates, they are for dealing with situation when the date of invalidity of a statement is known. By contrast, WP:As of tracks all statements that may become dated. I wouldn't worry about the former project too much, it doesn't make much use of precise language and shouldn't be effected by the merger. I'll deal with it when WP:DATED is out of the way, one way or another – Ikara talk → 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert and warn
When you revert vandalism, such as you have today on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, be sure to also warn the user, particularly repeat vandals, so that we are able to deal with the problem editors by blocking, which requires warnings first. لenna vecia  15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I was in a hurry and forgot to warn the vandal, but I'll try to remember in future – Ikara talk → 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Deitophobia.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Deitophobia.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pendulum discography
If Pendulum's Hold Your Colour sold 225,000 units in the UK (according to this Reuters article]) then it must be 2x gold? I'm guessing that In Silico must be getting closer as well. Dan arndt (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about the reliability of that article, especially as The article seems reliable, although the BPI website does not show any records of certifications for Hold Your Colour. However I am aware that the album is commonly held to be gold certified, and that reference is the best we have to go on at present. In Silico should show up on the BPI site when it hits Platinum as it has for Silver and Gold, we just have to watch for it. Thanks for the heads up – Ikara talk → 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Kodish
--Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GAC for "Showdown" (Pendulum song)
Songwriting ref at "Showdown" goes to generic search engine, user then required to input song title (you didn't provide such a note). I've often had to do the same for albums or band articles but some reviewers want direct specific link with no user input required. In that case, try a specific address e.g. For future information the important part is in the url after the q= If the song title has more than one word then each space between words is filled with %20. Can also be used to give full name of songwriter in biography article e.g. Thompson Robert Swire. Hope this helps.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to work that one out for some time. It is a somewhat annoying search engine (I can't even get results for some songs due to the 250 result limit). At least that's one less problem to worry about. Thanks – Ikara talk → 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

According to my assessment this article is now GA. Congratulations and please consider reviewing GAC articles yourself.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lisa Miskovsky - Still Alive - the Remixes.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lisa Miskovsky - Still Alive - the Remixes.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Audio cover rationale
Template:Audio cover rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2011 (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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pendulum - Propane Nightmares.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Pendulum - Propane Nightmares.ogg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)