User talk:Michig/Archive

Welcome
You seem to have got the hang of Wikipedia, but here's a few pointers for you to continue with:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

--Robdurbar 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oracle Forms
Hi, thanks for fixing that; my brain took a leave of absence briefly. btw, welcome!! Jayvdb 11:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarandon
Nice work. You really a newbie, or is this just a new account? --Dweller 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

England
I agree with you that a list of clubs would be better, but as you say, nothing is better than the constant tussling over which ones to include. I also agree that some of the recent edits are vandalism and others are at best ill-intentioned. Honestly, I'm at the "a plague on all their houses" stage. I am prepared to step in with a semi-protection if this continues, and I agree that there are a number of other issues on the article that need attention. I'll be keeping my eye on it to see how the situation develops. Best, Gwernol 08:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

club nights
Thanks for that, sorry about the error, cheers, feelfreetoblameme.

East Midlands Airport
Please see Talk:East Midlands Airport before reverting again. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - please see my response on the same page. Reaching consensus among editors seems to me to be the best approach.--Michig 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

can u clarify
hi michig can you clarify what u didn't understand from that sentence.can you tell me what is the major advantage of using SOA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.246.62.160 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The sentence was "This architecture makes decoupling of UI and it's Business logic.". The sentence itself doesn't make sense.--Michig 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question, the major advantage of using SOA is that functionality is split into discrete self-contained services that can be combined together into larger 'services' and can be reused. Separating business logic from the user interface is really a separate issue, although an SOA approach will tend to achieve this since individual services are separated from each other.--Michig 13:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rock music invitation
Hello WikiProject Alternative music member. WikiProject Alternative music, in my eyes, has proved to be successful "improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock", and improving their quality as well. One specific example I have witnessed is The Smashing Pumpkins article. The page has gone from a mediocre work, to GA status, to FA nomination. Only appropriate, as the Pumpkins are undeniably one of the most influential alternative rock bands on the 1990's and beyond. This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently ressurected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and not only be a member of alternative Wikipedians, but the rockin' ones as well. Rock on. -- Reaper  X  03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tappa Zukie
Hi, Thanks for creating the redirect page - we need one! i created that page a few weeks ago, but it was deleted without warning or explanation - hope this one stays in place!! Cheers--Sparklism 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music and sources
As part of the Alternative music WikiProject, we're gathering a list of sources on this page. Could you take a look and perhaps add any written references you have access to? Thanks! CloudNine 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction
Actually, my edit was in response to User:CambridgeBayWeather's vandalism to my page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaymaese (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Quest Software
I have deprodded TOAD (Software) as it has a long history of editors and certainly hasn't been totally pro-Quest Software.--Michig 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I don't think most of the "articles" about the company's products meet the same standard, and should be removed as adverts. — Loadmaster 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer about references
Hi. It's not so much about the number of references in the Dennis Alcapone article. The issue is that many of the claims in the article aren't shown to be backed up by any sources. For example, there is no indication about where the information about his early life came from. Without references, there is no guarantee to readers that the sentences are accurate. If those three footnotes already in the article also back up that other information, feel free to use them again as footnotes for those sentences. Spylab 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't easy to find reliable sources for Ska and Reggae articles - I would suggest that tagging articles as requiring refs is more useful when information in the articles is controversial or dubious. The vast majority of the information in the Dennis Alcapone article is verifiable, even if it was uncited, by reference to his record releases. Coverage of Ska and Reggae artists on Wikpedia is currently very poor, so while strictly everything should be verifiable and referenced, there is a danger that people will be put off from contributing to this area if other editors are over-picky. Thanks for the tip about inline refs coming after punctuation, though.--Michig 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CRM blog addition
Hi Michig, can you please tell me why the addition of CRM Blog under additional sources was removed? I feel it's a very valuable resource for anyone looking for information on CRM. Thanks. Chicoman98
 * To quote the manual of style guidelines in WP:EL, links normally to be avoided included "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." and "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." If you feel sure that the author of the blog is a recognized authority on CRM, you could re-add the link, although the blog contains a large number of adverts so the link may get deleted again because of that.  Thanks. --Michig 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Michig, thanks for the reply and I understand your policy. However, I am the founder of the blog and considered an expert with more than 10 years experience in the CRM industry. The advertising is light compared to most blogs (some adsense on the left side & within each post) so it's not objectionable amounts of advertising. Thanks for your advice as I will re-add the link since I feel the site is very relevant to this entry in wikipedia.


 * ~David
 * David, please note that this is not my policy but guidelines agreed across all of Wikipedia. It is also not recommended to add links to your own website(s) as this can be seen as self-promotion.  Generally, if a site is worth linking to, the view is that someone other that the author/owner of the site will deem it to be worth linking to and add the link.--Michig 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic Math
Hello. I thought I'd drop by and introduce myself. I'm John.

Regarding your recent edit on veganism here:
 * Being an advanced mathematician, I'm fairly familiar with basic math calculations.


 * First, I agree with you that calculating a percentage, is a basic math problem.


 * However, there are a couple of problems with your assertion that it is not Original Research:
 * The survey being cited does not list the population of the U.K. in 2005.
 * Original Research says: "'Original research includes ..., and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article'"
 * Therefore:
 * Because the survey does not include the population at the time of the survey, we have no basis to calculate the percentage of vegans directly from that source.
 * Getting the population from another source, would not necessarily be the correct population at the exact time of the survey. And thus: combining the two separate sources A (survey) and B (population) and coming up with C (percentage) .. would be original research.

Hopefully this explains why I removed that material as Original Research. Lsi john 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your argument in principle, but the population of the UK is fairly static, and since the figure of 250,000 vegans is itself an extrapolation of the data from the original survey (they didn't ask everyone in the UK), the percentage figure is probably more meaningful anyway. Additionally a figure for the number of vegans needs to be considered against the population as a whole in order to provide context.  Adding the percentage to the article simply saves the reader from having to work this out for themselves.  The United Kingdom article includes a 2001 population (from the census) and a (sourced) 2007 population estimate, both of which support the figure of 0.4%.--Michig 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The UK population in 2005 can be found here. I have not analysed, interpreted or synthesized any figures.  I have simply divided 250,000 by 60.2 million and multiplied by 100. The only aspect of this which is not based on fact is the estimate by the source cited in the article, which, since it it is not my research, is fair to include.--Michig 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just realized that The Times didn't mention any survey, so it would be useful to know where they got this figure from - if there was a survey undertaken it would be better to take figures directly from that.--Michig 14:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Population UK static = OR.Extrapolation from unknown statistical survey divided by different survey for total population = OR. figure for number of vegans, considered against population as a whole = Needs secondary source for citation or its pov/or. adding the percentage to the article saves the reader from working out themselves - convenient, but still OR without 2ndary citation. combining non-specific 2005 survey of vegans with 2007 population census and arriving at a calculated percentage is, by definition: (A+B=C) = OR.

I'm not going to fight about it, and I won't revert it (because that's nitpicking and not worth the effort for something trivial). However, it is incorrect to include it because it violates original research by combining 2 sources which are 2 years apart and provides a derived piece of ORIGINAL information which cannot be Verified anywhere in a secondary source. Lsi john 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the usefulness of the information. And unless its citable, we aren't supposed to include it. I suggest you invoke WP:IAR, rather than justify it. ;) heh. Peace Lsi john 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thought, since I'm avoiding work by being on wikipedia, is to get a 2005 census and cite that for the total population in the same paragraph. Then, at least (x%) is an obvious calculation from 2 cited sources. It still combines 2 sources, which may not have had the same population at the time, but the statistical error would be insignificantly nominal. Lsi john 14:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of WP:NOR since the guidelines cover "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor", which is not the case here, but I have added a ref for the 2005 population anyway.--Michig 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that it's a strict interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. In the articles I'm used to editing, just about every single word needs a citation or someone will remove it. That's why I said (above) that I'm not interested in deleting/fighting or reverting it. It's agreeably trivial. I was explaining why I removed it originally and providing foundation for my logic/conclusion. Sometimes we humans get bogged down in unimportant details. ;) no worries. Lsi john 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 hours sleep in the past 36 hours probably answers a bit of it too. (and dealing with an editor who refuses to understand 3RR) ;) Lsi john 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agile software development
While I agree that the article shouldn't use "hype," the use of "movement" is close to violating NPOV on the other side of the spectrum. I propose we use a more neutral word such as "concept" as in: "The publishing of the manifesto popularized a concept known as agile software development." We have to respect the opinion that agile software development is little more than a set of publishing events. On the other hand, it is undeniable that a concept got popularized, even if the concept itself is ill-defined (to wit: Wikipedia's article!). Iterator12n 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with either 'movement' or 'concept' - my recent edit was simply undoing another editor's changes which were largely vandalism. I'm not particularly pro-'Agile' (with a large 'A') myself, but where text is taken directly from the 'Agile manifesto', it shouldn't be changed by other editors.  Whilst I respect anyone's opinion on this topic, they shouldn't state it within WP articles unless it can be backed up with references, and if they have such references the criticism should go in the appropriate ('Criticism') section.  One of the problems with 'Agile' seems to be the lack of objective studies comparing it's effectiveness with other approaches - most of the 'evidence' seems anecdotal.--Michig 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed in whole, but with a preference of 'concept' over 'movement.'  I'll make the change later on.  Iterator12n 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Court shoe
I know Court shoe lacks references,Diff I looked for and did not find any, and then I prodded it. I would request that if you are going to remove a prod that is placed because references could not be found that you add reliable references before removing the prod. Jeepday (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Prodded articles can be deleted at any time, and it's better for anyone objecting to a proposed deletion to deprod the article a.s.a.p., rather than go and find references first. Prod's should only be used "for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia".  Articles that obviously are valid in terms of subject matter but need improving should not be prodded.  If you object to such articles I would suggest an AFD nomination would be a better approach.  I have no interest in or knowledge of court shoes but after searching for a few minutes have found some reliable-looking sources that back up much of the information in the article.  It still needs improving, with more references, and I have altered the tag accordingly.--Michig 11:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jeepday (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unit testing
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Arthurrh 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe you should do a diff to see what my edit actually was before giving me a vandal warning.  My edit removed vandalism.  The edit after mine removed some additional vandalism from an earlier edit.  Thanks.--Michig 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was using the diffs, but the edit history made it appear as if you had added the graffiti. When I tracked further back I see you didn't add it, it was just removed after you did your edits. Again, I apologize. Arthurrh 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - it wouldn't surprise me if I'd done the same thing myself at some point. Thanks for making an effort against vandalism, anyway.--Michig 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Singerman list
Please reconsider your view to Merge as the two articles in question have changed. Thanks. --Ludvikus 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. Please support Keep. --Ludvikus 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote to Keep. Thanks for the prompt - the article has improved enormously.--Michig 13:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Erica Roe
Hi, just letting you know I have nominated Erica Roe's article at AfD. Stu  ’Bout ye!  13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby)
Hi, we 'edit conflicted' on the above article, though with the same intentions. I've over written your changes with mine, though please feel free to edit them as you see fit. I was only trying to remove the narrative pov commentary from the article. Cheers Khu  kri  20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I added a ref regarding the second ban but the BBC one is just as good.--Michig 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant Corners
permalink for last talk page input

First off, nothing should link to a dab page by definition. Second, the dab page should really be at 'Brilliant Corners' not 'Brilliant Corners (disambiguation)', so retention allows this transfer to take place (there is a process for doing the exchange which retains histories). Third, PROD isn't really the way to do away with dab pages ... WP:MFD should be used as dab pages are not properly 'articles' by definition (I don't think there is an explicit statement about this in policy or guideline, except that PROD is to be used for 'articles' and specific userpage types). Hope this helps to explain my actions. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, no it doesn't, unless you intend to move the dab page and the article that's currently at Brilliant Corners. It isn't strictly true that "nothing should link to a dab page by definition" - a lot of articles have links to dab pages for other uses of a term. WP:MFD is for articles outside article namespace, which doesn't include dab pages. WP:PROD can be used for article namespace and user namespace - I'm just going by the guidelines here. I still can't see how this disambig page is useful at its current location, basically because anyone searching for either the band or the album are unlikely to ever come across this page, but if you want to keep it, I'll accept that.--Michig 12:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamaican discographies
I'm not sure if you're aware of how music was distributed in Jamaica, but I've noticed that most articles written about Jamaican artists assume the US/European model. This is innacurate.

Jamaican music early on was structured around the 45. After a track was recorded, it was mastered and usually had a dub plate cut for use by the sound systems. Sometimes producers who also ran a sound system would "hold" a record they made as an "exclusive", only to be heard on their lawn. If a 45 master was made, it was paired up with another track (sometimes one recorded at the session, sometimes one recorded years earlier) and usually distributed on a "blank" label. Usually the record label's name and phone number were stamped on with india ink. If these sold well (they cost more than a "regular" 45) or got crowd approval at a sound system, another press was done with the label's artwork and sold at the "regular" 45 price. Releases in Jamaica were rarely catalogued, so the only way to track them is by the matrix number from the stamper in the runout. Records were pressed until they stopped selling, resulting in one small or large run for most records to pressing until a No. 1 hit faded from the scene, usually in a few months. The industry was run based on getting the hottest new recording out as fast as possible. Versions started appearing around 1968-69. Originally they were just the vocal version with the vocal track deleted from the 4-track recording. And when dub remixing became standard for versions, a trip to King Tubby's was made before the mastering at the record plant.

Most LP releases up to the mid 70s were put together with the same attitude that the "Now That's What I Call Music #7000" uses today. They just repackaged the hits for people who didn't buy the 45 when it was released. That started changing in the early 70's, when Harry Mudie (It May Sound Silly) and Lee Perry (Blackboard Jungle) started using LPs to expand some of the sounds they were recording.

So ideally any discography of a Jamaican artist should emphasize 45 releases. UK 45 releases are generally riddled with errors, so info from a Jamaican releases is far more accurate.

LP and CD compilations should be noted afterwards, but not used to determine release date for a song. Upsetterfc 14:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I was aware of this. It's certainly true that for a majority of Jamaican artists, the 45's were more important than the albums, but information about the album releases is much easier to find, which is the only reason I have concentrated on LPs where I have added discographies. Feel free to expand any articles to include single releases - I would find the information useful.--Michig 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Glen Adams
Please feel free to apply your skills to Glen Adams. Wwwhatsup 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've given it a go but couldn't find as much info. as I thought I might do.--Michig 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Several facts I didn't know. I mention my doubts about the ongoing marriage on the article's talk page, altho I have seen them together. Wwwhatsup 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Japw real life.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Japw real life.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music October 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism
Hello there, Michig--I undid my own edits since I thought you vandalized that page that I added to my watchlist. I was looking for vandal edits using VandalProof and I reverted your edit by mistake, giving you a final warning by accident. I've just had a bad morning (seeing that I have to go to class on Veterans Day when everywhere else is closed). No hard feelings. --DFW 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative TV: Tony Barber/The Creation
If you consider playing one revival show sufficient to add to 'members' I suppose so. By the same token you can add Dan Melchior to ATV. Wwwhatsup 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Rain (band)
A tag has been placed on The Rain (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Corn Dollies
I looked at the Corn Dollies again and went to take off the speedy tag, but user:Natalie Erin has already taken it off. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rizzo deletion
Sorry for misrepresenting your reason for de-prodding the article. When I send a de-prodded article to AfD, I add a short description of the de-prodder's reasoning, which obviously went wrong this time. It was not meant deprecative; I had just assumed that you had taken the article's claim of "syndication" more seriously than it deserves. Yours, Huon (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have never edited Sanliurfa Province and Sacramento Sirens. I am sorry to vandalise the Spiral model. Someone else sweared me on there and I just answered. However I have never edited Sanliurfa Province and Sacramento Sirens. I don't even know what Sacramento sirens is. Please stop accusing me for thing I haven't done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.7.55 (talk • contribs)
 * I have replied here.--Michig 13:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)