User talk:Ivytheplant

MOAM
Thanks for fixing the anachronauts link on the Man or Astro-man? page. I added a pipe to the link so that it will show without the (band). Here is how: Anachronauts which gives you Anachronauts (points to band page). Olliegrind 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anachronauts
Have you looked at WP:MUSIC. It describes multiple criteria any one of which would be enough to qualify a band for inclusion. Having multiple albums released and for sale is a good start, assuming they were not released under the band's own label. Their label doesn't have to be big. Did they win a major competition? - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a bit of an issue with Wikipedia and us editors. I was glad to help you initially - I still am, in fact - but your attitude on the Help Desk was not very constructive. I can appreciate that it was born from frustration, however. You must appreciate that every single judgment about what tag to apply and when/where to apply it is the decision of an individual, based on guidelines and policies. That many sub-standard articles are not flagged up is because either editors who actively use tags have not seen that article or they made a decision not to flag it. Maybe they thought it was marginal, which works in both directions, of course; the editor who flagged your article may have felt that it was marginal, but came down in favour of tagging it. You must also appreciate that these tags are maintenance tags; their primary raison detre is not to get rid of the article, but to flag its need for improvement. If anyone felt that it should be deleted, the process would be very different, because it would either have a speedy deletion notice or be entered into AfD. But your article has not been nominated for any form of deletion and, in my opinion, is very unlikely to be. Yes, there is a degree of inconsistency in the application of policies and guidelines, partly for the reasons that I mentioned above; and yes, a lot of articles slip through the net, sometimes for a very long time. We're only human and there are only so many of us who actively work to clean up Wikipedia. Anyway, I hope that your initial experience of just one small part of Wikipedia's very big and complex system does not put you off; the good sides far outweigh any downsides. Regards, Adrian   M. H.  13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message and the apology (although it wasn't necessary, it was appreciated nonetheless). Some of the Help pages are a bit weak I must admit (they, like everything in Wikipedia, are developed by the volunteer editors). Experienced editors probably look at them through their owns eyes only, without necessarily being able to see any lack of clarity or missing facts that may cause problems for new editors. It does take some time to get used to them and interpret the large quantity of guidelines and information that is scattered around. Some useful links can help, such as the Editor's Index and the Department Directory.


 * It's quite normal for newly created articles to get some form of tag for some shortcoming or other. I am one of many who patrol the recent changes and new pages, and it can be a difficult task that requires prompt and efficient application of one's judgment, case by case. Regarding the question of notability, even the most notable of subjects must have that notability established without doubt. Even if the editor who tagged your article knew the band well, he/she would have fallen short by not tagging it if notability has not been satisfactorily established for the benefit of all readers. With 1724263 articles, there is always an enormous amount of work, and hence, many articles that are in need of attention. This is especially true of low-traffic articles, less popular subjects, and articles that have very few links that point to them. Although there are around 4million registered users, most of those are either totally inactive or occasional users.


 * I'm sorry to read that you felt under-served by those who responded to your question at the Help Desk; sometimes, respondents' replies will fall short of answering the question, or leave the questioner feeling less than satisfied for whatever reason. Wikipedia's huge number of policies and guidelines are frequently quite complex (nature of the beast) and very few editors understand each and every one of them perfectly. Everyone who contributes to the Help Desk does so with the best of intentions, but some questions are harder to answer thoroughly. The guidelines can be considered similar to a complex set of regulations, in that they have evolved and grown to deal with emerging issues.


 * But, as I said the other day, I hope that you will remain as a contributor to Wikipedia, because it is quite obvious to me that you have a lot to offer. With every editor who actively works to improve this website in some way, any way at all, Wikipedia is better for their efforts. Perfect it certainly is not, but then, what is? The upside is this site's potential to get ever closer to that goal. Regards, Adrian   M. H.  19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)