User talk:Michig/Archive11

Would you like a mop?
 MuZemike would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact MuZemike] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Michig. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I've seen some of your contribs and hard work, and I think you'd do a fine job as one. MuZemike 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very flattered that you would consider me suitable for adminship, and it is something that I would be interested in pursuing at some point. At present, however, I don't feel that I have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I would like, and would like to concentrate on content work for the time being. The whole RFA process is a little off-putting to be honest, and I would like to wait until I know it's something that I'm definitely prepared for before putting myself through that. I'm also aware that there are a lot of areas in which questions arise at RFA in which I would need to gain knowledge and, more importantly, experience before being able to answer without just cribbing from the appropriate policy page. Thanks again, and if I change my mind and decide to go for it I hope you won't mind me coming to you for advice. If there are areas in which you feel that I could be more useful prior to becoming an admin, I'd be happy to give them a go. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, definitely let me know if you change your mind. We need more admins out there currently. I'd be happy to help you out on stuff in which you're unsure of WP-wise. MuZemike 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm going to make an effort over the next 2 or 3 months to gain more knowledge and experience in areas that I feel I'm lacking, and may decide to go for it after that. I hope to have a bit more time available by the Spring, so that would be a good time for me to take on additional responsibilities here.--Michig (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Improving my typing when entering edit summaries is obviously one area...--Michig (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Zabrinski
You removed two "dead link" tags but as far as I can see they are still dead. Are you able to reach them? If not, why did you delete the tags? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the tags as the articles are not currently online. They may reappear, or they could be retrieved from archives. Either way, the fact that they are not currently available online doesn't alter the fact that the band received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced one of them with a link to an archived version of the article. The other one doesn't appear to be archived at present. I'll revisit it in a week or so and if it's still not available online I'll tidy the ref to take the web link out. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Williams (geometer) incubated
Per your request on my talk page, I restored the article to Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer). I'm sorry about any inconveniences I caused. &mdash; Sebastian 08:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Factory star prod
Thanks for the expansion with RSes. I didn't see anything for notability in which you have established now. Thank you, MuZemike 08:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

KSM (band)
Hello! You were recently involved in an AfD discussion regarding the article KSM (band). I just updated the page and was hoping for some honest feedback. Note that I am not a fan or in any way connected to the subject, but I am rather new to Wikipedia and this is my first “blind” rewrite. Comments, criticism, and advice are all welcome. Of course, please do any additional editing to improve the article if you can. Thanks in advance. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Blogs are generally not good sourced, and the references could use a little formatting, but other than that it's a good improvement. I'll take another look tomorrow - I'm about to log off for the evening.--Michig (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn, I should have known better about the blog references. I'll need to see what I can salvage without them.  Learning to do proper references is next on my "to do" list, so I'll fix those when I can.  I'm not really sure why I decided to tackle this, but it sure has been great way to learn! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Diesel Park West
Hi Michig, I've been asked by the band if the article could be changed back to the previous incarnation. I know it wasn't encyclopediacally correct in style and needed a bit of tarting up but if i changed it back, would i get a virtual slap in the gob? Don't want to upset anyone! Liam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.138.149 (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid not. The previous version was not written from a neutral point of view, which is a requirement for all articles, and contained copyrighted images that cannot legally be used within the article.--Michig (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Ash (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Secretions
Hello, I'm trying to get the wiki for my band "The Secretions" undeleted. The user who deleted it has been banned from the site so I can't appeal to them, your name was listed on the deletion record too. Why exactly was it deleted? Apparently we weren't "well known enough" to warrant a wiki? We have been playing shows all around the US and Mexico for 17 years now. Maybe we aren't on a major label or on MTV but I really don't think that's should be a requirement for wikipedia. A lot of our fans worked long and hard on that page and I would like to have it restored, for history's sake as well as a reference for future business contacts. There are a lot of other pages that used to cross-reference it as well. Any tips you could give me on who I need to contact about this would be great. Mickierat (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The user who deleted it isn't banned. It was deleted by User:Cirt, and you can ask him about it at User_talk:Cirt. The discussion that let to its deletion is at Articles_for_deletion/The_Secretions. The relevant guideline for notability is at WP:MUSIC - this will give you an idea of the criteria for inclusion with regards to bands. Any articles in reliable sources that discuss the band in any detail would help in establishing notability. One of the editors who took part in the discussion has since been banned, and you may be able to get the article restored into userspace at least so that you can work on it further. Please ask User:Cirt in the first instance. If I can help further please let me know. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are, Is, Were, Was.
I don't get it well, maybe because English isn't my first language, can you help me with some British rules? if you don't mind of course. I want to improve that part of my English because BrE is the English I like the most. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.97.18 (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * English, as I found out when I learned French, isn't always as consistent as other languages. Generally in BrE, when talking about a band, treat it as though you are talking about the members of the band together, e.g. 'Oasis were' = 'The members of the band Oasis were', unless that wouldn't make sense, e.g. 'Oasis were formed in 1991' suggests 'The members of the band Oasis were formed in 1991'. Sorry if I can't point you towards detailed grammatical rules. In French, by the way, singular names such as 'The Cure' get altered I believe to the plural 'Les Cure', which is even more confusing!--Michig (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Michig, I'm on my account and in my house now lol

Thanks man, I understand a little more, as you have said... English isn't consistent and really, really easy to learn, at least for me, well... I think any language has its own difficulty. I want to improve my English that I think its basic right now, but I always want to improve it using the BrE spelling because is the version of English that I prefer. Could you be my teacher? hehe, well... I haven't got someone that speaks this English and I really interested in follow British rules, words, slangs, etc, and I guess you are a native speaker. But well... I think that maybe I need to focus first in learning more English. Thanks again mate, excuse my mistakes and happy new year!

PS: Learned or learnt? lol--Danoasis (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gruyère
--Cyber cobra (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

CCI
Hi. I noticed your conversations at this talk page. Thank you very much for your willingness to help out there. :) If you preventatively edit an article, please note that you've done so at the actual CCI listing (here and subpages) to make sure that your work isn't inadvertently overlooked and the article reverted back to its last presumptive clean. While listings at CP are carefully checked, the number of matters at WP:CCI sometimes precludes that. All you have to do is overwrite the diffs with a signed note that says something like "rewritten", and I (or other reviewers) will skip it in the lineup. If you can't view a source that has been copied, please be careful to be completely rewrite. Sometimes these have been close paraphrases, and too minimal a rewrite might inadvertently bring it closer to the source if that's happened rather than farther away. :)

Again, I very much appreciate your work there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fancy playing swops ?
It is just a thought, but you may have noticed that Eddy Grant and Shabba Ranks have come up on the CCI. Both are reverted to versions about half the size(s) of what they were. Although I have listed them on my 'to do' list, I am happy to 'do swops' with you and, say, take back Billy Fury and/or Adam Faith and/or Lonnie Donegan (whatever) in part exchange. Ehhh, it's like being back in the school playground. No smoking behind the bike sheds though !?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you prefer - feel free to remove/add any articles from my list on your talk page as you see fit. I haven't got a lot done over the past few days due to man-flu, but will hopefully get a few more done this week.--Michig (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC chart references
Thank you for adding the references to Where We Belong. This is the first time I've seen a tag actually turn into a fact. Does the BBC have "sticky" versions of its charts, so that the references won't become stale when the charts change next week? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, but it may be possible to retrieve old charts from web archives, so the date of retrieval may be useful.--Michig (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Crunk Rock
An article that you have been involved in editing, Crunk Rock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
You may want to comment in this AN/I thread Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, I'm a bit to hot headed right now to comment further. Ridernyc (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - I've added my views there.--Michig (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did notice that you tagged Corey Bradford with an A7 after that editor stubbed it to a ridiculous extent, even removing the link that was in there to the official NFL stats page for him. Luckily I caught it in time. I'm concerned that there are apparently a large number of admins who support the speedy deletion of these BLPs now, even though they are clearly out of process - these 'trimmed' articles could easily get deleted before they're spotted.--Michig (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * so far I know of at least 3-4 articles that he trimmed that I later tagged. Ridernyc (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP drive
We've suggested the same thing: getting 100 editors who will go through the unsourced BLPs one by one, sourcing and expanding them or nominating them for deletion. Pledge to do one a day and the backlog will be managable. Shall we start a project page, and start recruiting from the BLP WikiProject, participants in these recent debates, members of the ARS, etc? No time like the present. I'm also going to suggest that the New Page Patrol should state that an unsourced BLP should not be marked as patrolled unless it is being nominated for deletion. Tagging it as unsourced and moving on just adds to the backlog. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the arbcom decision, it looks like a lot more may get deleted before anyone gets a chance to look at them, but yes, I'm all for giving them a chance of being brought up to scratch. I think I've probably looked at around 30-40 already, some fixed, some were incorrectly tagged, some I couldn't do anything with, a few I prodded/took to AFD. I don't have any experience of setting up projects but if you'd like to do it I'll happily add my name to it. This is the sort of issue that, if I had known about I would have been quite prepared to look at a long time ago, but the apparent crisis caused by all these unsourced BLPs wasn't apparent to me until the bot notifications that appeared on user pages on my watchlist, and the unduly hasty attempt at purging them. I suspect there may be many other editors out there in a similar position. Let's hope so.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, ArbCom have made about the worst rushed decision they could. So much for considered judgement. I started helping on the backlog last month, revamping those I could find sources for and prodding or AfDing the rest. I think we need to persuade the mass deleters to at least leave a list of all these articles somewhere so they can be resurrected if notable and sourced. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wordsmith has started a list of volunteers to source 500 each: User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added my name. I've been doing this for the past few days, but whether I can keep it up may depend on whether the community as a whole sees sense and starts dealing with this issue constructively. The Arbcom decision and the ill-considered comments by Wales have been enormously damaging in my view, with some of the least helpful editors here seemingly given carte blanche to delete anything that doesn't have an inline citation immediately after it and to tag the most obviously notable and uncontroversial content for deletion. If these are the sort of editors the powers that be want here, I'm not sure how much longer I'll continue.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, ArbCom and Wales have emboldened these fanatics. If this trend keeps up it will kill Wikipedia, as editors who actually bother adding material and references become exhausted trying to keep up with the pace of indiscriminate deletion. Editors like Unitanode seem incapable of judging notability or adding sources; they're either lazy or incompetent. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you both. The Americanisation of Wikipedia has become more and more noticeable to me over the last 18 months or so. It is their laws, their beliefs, their take of what is correct, etc., that is starting to infect the whole network. The gung ho, rootin' tootin', eighth cavalry, shoot it down philosophy, is neither healthy, nor NPOV friendly. It is, to me, their notion of what constitutes copyvio, neutral, deletable, et al, that seemingly holds sway. I am hideously biased, and you can quote me, but in my view so is this 'shoot 'em on sight policy' over BLP. You are perhaps both American - although I suspect not - and I also reckon most, if not all, of those who are supportive of this BLP 'kill the lot of them' approach are from that part of the world.

Actually this is not a nationalistic gripe, more a philosophical one. Either way, it is recipe for disaster.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is hosted in the US, so US laws on copyright, etc. are enforcable. That's just the way it is, and we need to avoid legal action being taken against the foundation. To be honest, I don't see big differences in behaviour of editors by nationality, so far as nationality is apparent - I suspect that there are just more Americans here than any other nationality, simply due to sizes of populations of English-speakers, so any group of editors is likely to have more Americans than anything else, including the helpful, constructive, thoughtful ones. I think, however, that there are a higher proportion of editors here now than ever before who have little interest in adding and improving content, preferring to delete, argue, try to raise the bar on notability and fair use guidelines to allow more to be deleted, etc., but I don't see this as a wholly US phenomenon.--Michig (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Good catch
JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ted Shackelford
Good day! I saw you'd removed the prod from Ted Shackelford, stating that "notability is pretty clear here". However, that's not really all of the problem. The issue with unreferenced BLPs isn't just that they're biographies of non-notable living people, but that they're making claims about living people that are unreferenced, and therefore possibly untrue, and possibly damaging. You've de-prodded Ted's article, but there are still claims on there that aren't referenced. My wife spotted this one: "He smokes a pipe and was profiled in the Winter 2004 issue of Pipes and Tobacco Magazine.". Now there's no evidence to back that up, and whilst it isn't as bad as "he likes to tear the heads off pigeons", you can see the problem, right? Consequentially, I'm going to remove all unsourced information in the article - I won't return the PROD in this case. Feel free to put it back if you can find sources. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't re-add a PROD in ANY case - see WP:PROD.--Michig (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you see an unsourced negative or possibly controversial statement in a BLP, remove it. It doesn't require the entire article to be deleted.--Michig (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard chart rankings
Sure, I figured that there must be something more that I wasn't seeing about the single you added to Get Crunk, Who U Wit: Da Album, so I decided to cite Billboard and see if someone could sort it out. Do you know anything more about the limits of Billboard's online archives? At least some of the old charts are there, but do you know how far back you can go online and still be certain of finding all the charting releases? Secondly, how did you know when to look for the single? You cited Billboard magazine in the article, but it seemed from your edit summary that you already knew somehow what you were looking for. Do you have another source of chart information available (and if so, can anyone use it?), or is it something you just know, like baseball players' batting averages?

(By the way, I didn't mean to leave rubbish in the infobox when I reverted your edit .)

Finally, you reverted the "noncharting" references for both the album and the single. I understand that the Billboard.com citation for the single was wrong, but I'm not sure why you also removed the citation for the album. Is it because you know that the album charted, just as you knew that the songs had charted, but can't cite a reference yet for the chart position, or do you deduce that the album charted because the single charted, or is there some other reason that I've overlooked? Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was a couple of months ago that Billboard revamped their website, losing a lot of older chart history in the process, although some old chart data is still there. A lot of older Billboard magazines are available 'full view' on Google Books, including the charts - I searched on the song title there to find them. If the Billboard website shows a chart placing I think we can treat it as reliable, but we can't rely on the absence of a chart placing there being correct, hence my removal of the statement that the album didn't chart. As an illustration, this page on the Billboard site states "This artist hasn't released an album yet" - not really encouraging regarding the quality of their data. There may be a separate reliable US chart aggregator around somewhere, but I haven't found it yet.--Michig (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tornados
Could you have a look at a couple of recent edits of this article. I am painfully aware of not biting the newcomers, and these are not vandalism - almost certainly written by someone 'who was there' (or someone close to). Nevertheless, they contravene NPOV, WV and COI. I would appreciate seeing your level headed approach to this situation in action, as I spend enough time amongst the Wiki 1960s pop star articles to know this sort of edit is not unique. In trying to achieve the right balance/approach, I have never felt entirely comfortable in these circumstances. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a shot. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look this evening.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't get round to it last night. It all looks plausible. This appears to back up the claim of joining the Israeli group, though clearly isn't a great source, and this backs up Watts playing in Fury's band in the mid-60s. I don't seem to have anything in the books that I have about The Tornados, and Google Books doesn't suggest there's a lot more out there, which surprises me. The whole article could do with a good tidy if you have any sources - the early line-up was far more important than the later incarnations but there's more detail on the later years at the moment. It can be difficult - often former members of these bands do know better than the available sources, but often old rivalries and falling-outs lead to a real bias in their editing. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

High Note Records
Hey, I looked on allrecordlabels.com and there are only two labels whose name resembles "high note" - the jazz label in NY, and another company in Taiwan. Why do you think the reggae label you are thinking of isn't the same as the jazz one? EAE (Holla!) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reggae label was a Jamaican one run by Sonia Pottinger. As far as I know it released only reggae: albums, singles.--Michig (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored, thanks.) Ikip 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

 * Thankyou for noticing. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Abigail Gibbs
I think that this article should not be deleted as the mentioned person is an immensely popular author, who has received rave reviews for her book which has 43 chapters as of now. This is not an easy feat for a 15 year old child and thus is very notable. Even if the book has not yet been published, we all make a start somewhere and having a page on a highly popular website like Wikipedia may just give the writer the boost she needs and realize the dream of getting her book published. Therefore it is my ardent request to just leave the page online and not delete it as, since Abigail Gibbs has a very large fan following, there will be a lot of visitors to this page.Jemimah 1603 (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, giving aspiring writers a boost isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. When other people have written about her (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc.), we can have an article on her. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy vio
Would you have a look at my last message at Scotts talk, it does again appear to be a copy vio fron the other link, see what you think, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right thanks for looking, I will, that is also something that I have seen a few times in the past, if an article has a bit of content like this one had but no citations, where has it come from? Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The tone suggested it didn't originate on Wikipedia, so I've trimmed it down. It still needs some citations, which I'll look for later. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quite an important music to lose, I will also look at improving it a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
Kudos for that neat reception section at Life (Yo Gotti album), you blew up that prod, so to say. Hekerui (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me prevent the deletion of Lesser of Two and Embers (band)
Hi, I saw that you were involved in editing the Skarp band page. I created the Lesser Of Two and Embers (band) page. Lesser Of Two played with Skarp at one point and I thought that since they were bands playing in the same circles that you could help me prevent the site from being deleted either through your involvement or advice in this process. I am a new wikipedia contributor.

Thanks. javascript:insertTags('Noodlesteve (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
 * I've just had a quick look around and couldn't find any coverage of either band in newspapers, magazines, etc., which would be the best hope for saving them. I'll take another look tonight.--Michig (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't found anything that might help keep those.--Michig (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lynda Stipe
Good move on the redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only noticed the proposed merge after I'd redirected, but I didn't see anything that needed merging.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dwarves articles
If you want to take it on yourself to redirect the articles to the Dwarves main article, I won't object to it. But as stand alones, I think at best they fall under the part of NABLUMS that says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Niteshift36 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most have sufficient coverage for separate articles. One or two, such as the compilation, probably don't, so a redirect would be in order, but I can't do much while they're at AFD.--Michig (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Michig - there's one dodgy compilation that doesn't look remotely notable, but the other albums certainly are.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see notability in any of them. One paragraph reviews and mentions in interviews aren't significant. Nor is a reference to an article on an Irish "event guide" that says SPIN voted it most offensive. That's about like being "player of the week". As I said to Lugnuts, if you want to redirect them, I'll withdraw the AfD's. If not, then I'll just see where the AfD goes. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible error
The article on the album The Dwarves are Young and Good Looking says it was released on 2007. I thought it was odd that a source in 2003 listed an album that didn't get released until 2007, so I checked. As far as I can see, it was released in 1997. Might want to think about changing that. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right - I've fixed it. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mekon (musician)
Wow, great job on this article, I was just sourcing unreferenced BLPs and noticed this. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - once in a while I hit one that I can source well. If only they were all that easy.--Michig (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for you help on keeping the Chris Arrowsmith article from deletion. Chris (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Phipps
I'm glad someone who knew where to look was able to cleanup, verify, and knowledgeably expand that article and turn it into something that gives real information content. The one line vandalism it received before was out of place on the article, but not out of place here. You are "a thoroughly nice bloke".Amentet (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should see me when I'm drunk :-)--Michig (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Five Get Over Excited (The Housemartins song)
Your improvements are what I call quite good!--Milowent (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly the 4th best edits in the article.--Michig (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Down (Sugar Samba)
I made a short article on the band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pulp
hello, i have received a message from you saying my recent alteration of the page about the band pulp was not useful. I have never altered the page, would never alter a page in a way you suggest and I am upset that you are claiming I have made any such alterations. I would like this claim to be retracted as it is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.136.19 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit to Pulp was from the IP address that you are using. It may have been someone else using the same IP address.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ska shrine article added to skank (dance) article, now deleted
Hi--The Ska Shrine page I created was marked for deletion on Jan. 31 by you but then was added to the Skank (dance) article on the same day by Matt91486, along with some references on skanking I had provided in my original article. That made some sense to me. It's now been completely removed from the Skank (dance) page by Spylab, who also removed other dance information, with the explanation, "cleanup." Can you recommend any way we could save the ska shrine information, either on its own page or on skank (dance)? I'm turning to you first before getting into anything with Spylab. Thanks very much for your help. "Ska Shrine" in search still gets you to the ska (dance) article, where the edit history shows Spylab's current edits. --Utilizer (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking Roger's birthdate
Ranking Roger was too young for legal things when he joined the Beat so they lied about his age. He is my boyfriend and he is getting frustrated that we cannot change his DOB here! Would it help if we sent you a scan of his birth certificate and/or passport? --Rockinkitten (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look: http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/mol_n_me/Roger/r4.jpg

--Rockinkitten (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise against putting scans of birth certificate and passport online. The best thing here would be to find a newspaper/magazine/book source that backs up the claim.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What about if we do a youtube video interview where Roger explains why all the books have got the wrong birthdate? --Rockinkitten (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've raised this at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in the hope that someone can suggest a solution. Thanks for your patience.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Hood
Michig, I need your help. You helped me with this page back in 2008. An administrator is threating to delete three images of books that I placed on the Mary Hood page that I created. These images have been up for over two years. I can change the data below these pics to match that of those of Gone With the Wind. Is this needed? Please advise?Carsonmc (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Other books have as much or less info. See The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter. Carsonmc (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not getting back sooner but I haven't had a lot of time in the past few days. Looking at your talk page this seems to have been resolved, but if you think I can help futher please let me know. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD
Hi !. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best  will in the world, it  is just  not  possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most  dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that  the article may  have to  go if the creator or major contributors cannot  justify their work. For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at  WT:BLP PROD TPL on  the development  of templates that are designed to  encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without  scaring away the newbies who  might  not  be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not  another  a licence to  kill for the deletionists, in  fact  the very idea of it  is to  ensure that  you  are not  fighting a losing  battle. It would be great if you  could look  in  at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to  engage in a hefty  debate on  incusion/deletion  policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I suddenly, in the middle of something else, got a terrible thought that I did not thank you for all your input to my copyvio issues. Your intervention was much appreciated at a time when I was in the depths of despair. The matter is not over; not by a long chalk. However, if I have forgotten to say thanks, and I think I have (inexcusable), then please accept my gratitude right here, right now. I do not feel comfortable sending those barnstar things, cookies, kittens etc., but just to let you know I am in your debt. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Unfortunately I haven't had much time for Wikipedia in recent weeks, but hope to do some more at some point.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave Padden
Hi Michig,

I was notified that you deproded Dave Padden, suggesting a merge instead. You state in your edit summary that the musician in question is a member of two bands for which we have articles, so I am unsure which article you feel should be the target. There is not much information on the Dave Padden article; what kind of merge do you recommend?

Neelix (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a merge as such. As a member of two notable bands he probably meets the criteria for a separate article. If the content was to be merged, this should be kept as a redirect, so deletion is a non-starter.--Michig (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornell Campbell
An editor has made some changes to Cornell Campbell including some OR that includes changing all mentions of his name to Cornel. I've written to the user here but I'd like to leave it to you to clean up the article, just so he knows I'm not the only one with issues. :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If no sources are forthcoming by tomorrow I'll revert. The POV has to go anyway, but let's give him a chance to sort out the issues himself. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * His official Myspace (as confirmed in a radio interview I've got) is http://www.myspace.com/cornelcampbell, and his email address is cornelcampbell77@yahoo.com, so it's plausible that Cornel is the correct spelling, but a source making it clear would be best.--Michig (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Use on the official homepage should be sufficient, I guess. However the double L spelling has been used pretty consistently on his record releases by the look of things. I would suggest changing first name to surname in the in-article later mentions, that way one's covered. If true, it seems a good candidate for a unilateral move. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Byron Crawford
I am unclear as to how the subject is notable, and it is probably AUTOBIO. Also, there is an unresolved AFD page for the subject, supporting the notion that his notability is questionable. Archer Drezelan (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza
Hi, I wonder if you would take a look at The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza. I'm stuck cos of the 3 revert rule. Newbie editor is removing sourced content and adding OR. Won't communicate. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking in. The rogue was eventually tamed. Researching the venue led to an incredible voyage of doscovery with 100's of refs. Having satisfied the newbie's concerns I've had to procrastinate writing the rest of it. I'm seriously considering making a short documentary! Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)