| Revision as of 17:41, 27 January 2009 view sourceSP-KP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,538 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:14, 28 January 2009 view source 124.170.39.18 (talk) no need for this any longerNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | ] | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| |] ] ] ] ] ] | |||
| |} | |||
| {| style="align: center; margin-right: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: #2222dd solid 1px; background-color: #c5ccf9; text-align: center;" | |||
| | colspan="16" align="center" style="background-color: #e8ecff;" | '''PLEASE NOTE:''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | align="center" | ], ], ], ], threats and all other forms of abuse will be removed from this page without comment. | |||
| |} | |||
| == == | |||
| I'm baffled by your comment on this AfD. I looked in Mandarin and couldn't easily find reliable sources. Moreover, it's a small mall by SM standards: it turned out to be one-quarter of the originally estimated size, and their smallest mall in China. Was the language in my Merge comment confusing? ] 10:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :My comments supporting retention of a discrete article on the above subject refer to the prior comments of Blanchardb and Edison, which suggest that citable sources about the mall exist, and that the mall itself is the largest in the district in which it's located. --] (]) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Gene, I think in dealing with this article we need only deal with the obvious outstanding content issues. If what you say about said editor is true, I would personally avoid engaging in any debate other than that which relates directly to policy, and the manner in which this article deviates from stated guidelines. I was threading softly becasue I realise the points I'm raising will seem contentious to some. I haven't looked at all the published sources cited, other that the 10 pages dedicated to 'space music' in Lanza (1994) but that was enough for me to see that there are some glaring omissions and many inaccuracies in the article. I wasn't aware of the HOS radio program before seeing the article but having looked up the website I now see it is a commercial operation, this automatically undermines all of the cited material taken from this site - it was already problematic insofar as it is self-published. I think a drastic cutting back of citations and removal of synthetic material is inevitable. I would suggest waiting for further responses to the tagging before taking action. ] (]) 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK well I can see this is a somewhat sensitive issue then. The way I see it, that is, relative to my understanding of how various genre definitions have evolved, inaccuracies exist in the article, the historical assessment is somewhat muddled, and I now understand the point you make about the HOS influence. This is going to be messy. ] (]) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I had never heard of this HOS show, but in the UK & Europe 'space music' is the English translation of 'kosmische musik' which is interchangeable with 'krautrock', I would refer to what HOS are doing as largely 'New Age music' at least judging by some of the music they are endorsing. ] (]) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Gene, it seems your assessment was correct, my ] efforts were wasted. Said user bluntly refuses to deal with the content dispute in a constructive fashion and seeks only to lower the tone of proceedings with juvenile taunts. Would you mind offering your opinion so ] can get an idea of the pattern of behavior on the 'space music' article. I suggest we move forward by posting on ], ] and ]. Do you have any suggestions? ] (]) 04:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Gene, in an effort to try and move things forward, would you be prepared to put your differences with Milo aside so we can all try and tease out matters relating to the HOS source? I am suggesting the first step be a ] posting before editing continues. If we could begin some kind of civil discussion on the talk page that would be a positive step, how does that meet with you? ] (]) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK thanks, lets see what comes of this, hopefully we can hammer something out that we are all be happy with. Cheers. ] (]) 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::PS. In the past, has there been any attempt at mediation or any posting on a content related notice board regarding the article? ] (]) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Koyaanisqatsi == | |||
| Cool ] in UT 734. Very creative. :) ] (]) 05:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Space music MedCab == | |||
| Hi there! You have been named as a participant in an ] regarding the article ], which I am mediating. I would like you to drop by the ] and indicate whether or not you agree to participate in the case. Please know that participation in the case doesn't mean you've done anything wrong! It's just a way to take everyone involved in a dispute away from whatever has caused the dispute and discuss the issues with a third party helping to keep the conversation on track. I look forward to working with you to address the problems and resolve them. //] ] <small>10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| Just as a reminder: | |||
| *]: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or '''the material may be removed.'''" | |||
| and its subsection | |||
| ::*]: "The burden of evidence '''lies with the editor who adds or restores material.''' All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." | |||
| It is clearly up to you to do the citing if you wish that material in the article. I am asking you to either undue your edit returning improperly sourced material, or for you to properly source the materisl. | |||
| And also be aware of : ]. -- ] 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I do believe that you are not interpreting our policies correctly. Removing unsourced and improperly sourced material is not vandalism. But returning unsourced and improperly sourced material is. -- ] 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please read ] - simply making a bunch of claims and then stating that one of thise many links here at the bottom should verify that claim, is not proper sourcing. Each claim in the article must be verifiable by noting which reliable source supports that particular claim. and repeating our policy: the editor who adds or restores material is responsible for providing the proper inline citation to support the claims. -- ] 15:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your statement ''"There is no WP policy which states that it is appropriate to delete links to as-yet uncited sources then immediately blank article content, without either prior talk page discussion or appropriate tagging"'' is wrong. ]: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or '''the material may be removed.'''" - without a source, material in an article can be removed with no tagging and no discussion. -- ] 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] and deletion nominations== | |||
| There seems to be no problems with the categories, however there is a deletion nomination. - ] 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| After two days I am seeing yet again a repetition of arguments. We need a page within the WikiProject, an FAQ for example, so that in the inevitable event of another deletion nomination, we can simply say '''Keep''' - . - ] 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Holidays!== | |||
| Hi Gene, thanks for your efforts to save good articles. I hope after the holidays you'll come back refreshed and renewed. I'd like to see you back here less frustrated and having more fun. Take care. ] (]) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I concur with your diagnosis of the section of this article which is about "King William Leo Timlin" as a hoax. ] (]) 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == A centralised discussion which may interest you == | |||
| Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found ]. ] (]) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||