User talk:Michig

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy (song).
Message added 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I thought you were going to userfy Wolf Alice rather than the article on the single - presumably you have no objection to me restoring the band article to userspace to work on/merge the single article into? I think that's the first AfD I've seen that has been withdrawn by someone other than the nominator, btw ;) --Michig (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extraordinary times call for extraordinary methods. I'm sure Sarek doesn't mind--after all, the article is technically (!) deleted. Oh, and, eh, ahem, well, I seem to have missed a little icon on your user page, which, apparently, well, may have been there since 2006...didn't realize, sir, my apologies, Mr. Admin yourself! Haha, now I look like a real moron. Yeah, go ahead and do what you like. What should end up happening is a history merge, single into band, and if that AfD had continued it should have properly ended with a merge given the sourcing you indicated. Happy days Michig, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Band article restored and improved (hopefully there will be a bit more to say about them before long). Didn't use anything from the single article in the end, so I deleted it. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You had deleted this article after it was recreated and nominated for deletion a second time. I have nominated it for deletion a third time, and hope that you may look at and possibly contribute to the discussion. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Michig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass (English band).
Message added 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ducknish (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Desmond Dekker et al.

I share your concerns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Savage Republic page

Well done and much appreciated.--Soul Crusher (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

noteability is a problem why can't you know that? --Indienews (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? --Michig (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 04:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Venini

Hi Michig. I've made some improvements to Venini since you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venini. Could you take a look and see what you think. Thanks. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin Daniels

If he is "well known enough" then please can you evidence that? Article is in an awful state... GiantSnowman 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, regularly appearing on his Dad's TV show is probably enough, but he also appeared in several series of The Les Dennis Laughter Show (which I missed for obvious reasons), and presented two series of Game for a Laugh (likewise). He has had starring roles in several pantos and appeared in his own right on stage and screen. A quick Google search found several sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. More for verification: BBC. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

He was also the host of the national TV version of the game show Lingo ([8]). --Michig (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me, cheers! GiantSnowman 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad Astronaut AfD

Thanks for digging up those sources at the Bad Astronaut AfD. I have no idea where I was looking, but none of that stuff came up for me when I tried to find sources. —Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

Hello, this article was deleted a couple of months ago, but I feel like it's a valuable subject. I'd like to clean it up and make it a viable article again. MBisanz (talk · contribs) suggested that I ask you for help. What do you think I can do to make the article viable again? From what I can see, it could use cleaning up, formatting, and division into sub-articles - but I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for awhile now and it'd help if you could give me some tips on what I should do. Thanks in advance. -ryand 17:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this could be difficult, because there are editors who seem to believe that such lists shouldn't be here, but I think a key thing would be to find sources and ensure that content is properly sourced. Lists generally fare better when the items in the list have articles or can be shown to be significant enough to have articles, so finding sources will be important, and concentrating on those entries that have articles or where sources are available could be the place to start, as well as focusing on the information about those programmes that can be verified. As to where you will find sources for Singapore television online I'm not sure. Best of luck. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A barnstar for your ongoing efforts to provide sources at music- and band-related AfD discussions on Wikipedia, such as at the AfD for the Singing Adams article. I appreciate your objectivity and initiative to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation. I do really wish that people would get into the habit of searching for sources themselves and considering alternatives to deletion before taking these articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally always adhere to source searches per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything for deletion at AfD. Many people just don't want it to become required, for various reasons, so spurious AfD nominations will likely occur ad infinitum on Wikipedia. I've seen many arguments defending the non-use of WP:BEFORE; many people prefer for content to be very easily deleted. This isn't a complaint, it's just how it often is. Additionally, sometimes sources are missed despite following source searching. Also, I've noticed a trend in which many AfD nominations lately are valid ones, versus around a year ago, when I was spending a great deal of time there saving clearly notable topics from arbitrary deletion (e.g. "delete per nom," "not encyclopedic," etc.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right that we're not going to see an end to them. With a lot of the articles I can see why people don't believe an article is justified, but it seems that in around half of cases merging or redirecting is a much better option that just hasn't been considered. Oh well, off to today's AfD log to see what's what... --Michig (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Causing problems again are you. lol

Its more informative and looks better the way I was standardizing - now look how bare you've made the Ras Michael opening. Aesthetics is a part of the experience of acquiring knowledge and as far as I'm concerned that's as good as place as any to state where the article subject originates from. Still this is a de facto American site so articles should be delivered and devoured like a Big Mac.

You've already dropped the "u" out of colour - is there any other adjustments you think we should make to the English language and the way we approach its use here on Wikipedia and in the UK. lol

Being serious now. Fair enough Michig you say the guidelines and MoS stuff says to use this and that form of opening - so I'll comply though I'm starting to think we're looking in the wrong place for the Borg.

Sluffs (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed that you had undone the Ras Michael name that I used for the Bio opening. I felt as though that this was different from U-Roy (sobriquet) and Prince Buster (maternally given at birth) in that it was an identity name and tied to his Rastafari upbringing. It seemed more suitable and once again was more aesthetically pleasing - sort of easy to hear and speak. Articles should be like songs - flow, beat, rhythm, motif and feeling - without that its akin to the architectural style of "Brutalism" - all concrete and function without aesthetically pleasing aspects for the public's eye though a commendable demonstration of the architect's desire for modernity. Also whats wrong with reiterating something - I normally reiterated the place and country of birth in the first sentence of the Bio (sometimes with expanded details) to establish a further link from short term memory to long term memory. You've only got 20 mins before the mind starts to lose the heights of concentration (universal) so why not reiterate a bit within the article.

Sluffs (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain "You've already dropped the "u" out of colour"? --Michig (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought that may be read wrong. I was in Spain years ago and had a conversation with an American in a bar about the "missing" vowels. Just bar talk and a bit of cross-cultural humour or should I say humor. I did have a look at the George Harrison article which is featured on the front page today and thought that maybe for the sake of editing consistency it may be an idea to use the same form in the opening sentence. As far as spelling goes we could all agree to use "couleur" which would make the French happy since they will have managed to get English speakers to put the vowels back in the right place. lol

BTW you go and format the issue in question and I'll refrain from adding new ones like that. I'm off to do some other articles that are not reggae related. Need a rest from the reggae articles. Nine Gods Festival in Malaysia - bloody Indians get everywhere. lol

Sluffs (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

John Broomhall

This article, which you PROD'd, was restored on request at my talk page, you may wish to review it. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Liam Hackett

Previously you've deprod the article Liam Hackett after an unregistered user 2.24.249.101 had nominated the article for deletion. This time, another user 129.215.5.255 nominated the article again for deletion. What can I do to prevent the article to be deleted? How do i Provide reasons for NOT deleting the article and all? I dont know what to do and I'm not sure if I should remove the tag since its by an unregistered user. I dint know who to contact so I contact the closes Admin that had done some edits to the article. Please Help & Thanks in advance! =] Nicholance (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that it's at AfD, the tag must not be removed. The best course of action would be to contribute at the AfD discussion, explaining why you feel the subject should have an encyclopedia article, with reference to notability guidelines. Any coverage in reliable sources that you can identify will also likely help your case. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Sully

Perhaps in future you could have the decency to use your administrator's authority in a more consistent and neutral way. You obviously didn't notice that I repeatedly sought discussion under the BRD principle. Instead all I received was the bullying use of warnings on my talk page. This is completely unacceptable. It is also clearly unacceptable and ridiculous for the other editor to hide behind an assertion of the WP:BURDEN policy by challenging and then removing such non-contentious information as what school Sandra Sully went to but also totally ignoring the significant amount of actual potentially contentious information. There needs to be some consistency and common sense with adding citation needed tags to articles. If we had to remove all non-contentious information just because someone challenged it with no better reason than "it might have all been made up" then we would need to remove a significant amount of probably accurate information from nearly all articles. It's no wonder that so many people give up editing on Wikipedia when they have to put up with such ridiculous behaviour by other editors and inconsistent "mediation" from administrators. Afterwriting (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I haven't used any administrator authority here. I simply warned you for edit warring, as any editor could have done, and quite frankly some other editors, having seen the edit war going on, would probably have sought a block for both of you by now for far exceeding already the three revert rule. You don't 'seek discussion' by constantly reverting, you do it by starting a discussion on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the other editor concerned. We have strict policies around biographies of living persons and any editor can remove unsourced information that they feel is contentious. Of course the judgment of what is and is not contentious will vary between editors. For this reason the other editor had some justification for removing this information, although edit-warring from both sides was not helpful. I would suggest that if you wish to improve this article you look for sources which can be used to expand the article with properly referenced material. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Merry Andrew (clown)

Hi. Would you please userfy this article to my user space? I still think there's a valid article, and would like to take a shot at expanding it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course - restored to User:Beyond My Ken/Merry Andrew (clown). Best of luck. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band)

Dear Michig, as you are an admin who contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducktails (band) and knows about our band policy could I ask you to have a look at the article User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band) and the process of keeping it out of WP. My feeling is the article's subject is notable enough for main space and would survive an Afd but I think the new user who created it has not had much joy from the deleting admin. There was some discussion here: User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Ducktails (band) and here User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Ducktails (band) revised. I think moving the article to mainspace and then perhaps sending it to Afd, if needed and as the creator asked for ("Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible?" ), would be best. If you think all is OK as is then no worries. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)) PS: I would ask the deleting admin directly but have had problems with them before.

I don't see any involvement of mine in that AfD, but in my view the coverage from Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, BBC and Allmusic is sufficient to establish notability via both the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Some of the sources used would not pass WP:RS, but there are enough that do. The references need tidying up and the prose needs copyediting, but as the recent discussion was starting to show, this would likely survive AfD if taken there and allowed to run for 7 days. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jolly sorry you are right - I don't know where I got you name from then. But anyway do you know how to proceed to get the article back to mainspace? (Msrasnw (talk) Sorry I got your name from this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Donkeys (band) I was mixing them up!!!! (Msrasnw (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

Perhaps it might help if I dealt with some of the issues around the references and gave it a quick copyedit, then we could go back to the deleting admin to request that it is restored - what do you think? Since it's in User:Marcushamblett's userspace, have you discussed it with them? --Michig (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would help a lot - changing the tone and some tidying is all that is needed. I haven't discussed it with Marcushamblett but suspect they might have been put off as their interactions here have not been good. They haven't edited since 21 April. We have their earlier request to the deleting admin. "Again I'd ideally like the question of deletion put to a vote rather than judged by you, is that possible?" And I think that could be enough just to get the artice back for normal editing in the mainspace. I would rather not interact in anyway with the deleting admin. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC))

Ok, I'll have a go at it. I've found about another 50 sources that could be used, so there should be little doubt about its suitability to return to mainspace. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through and added a lot of sources. There are a lot of other sources that specifically cover the III and Flower Lane albums, and I think these should have separate articles. I'll come back later to read it through and copyedit to get the prose to flow better, but in the meantime if you have any feedback please feel free to let me know. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Splendid work. If/when Marcushamblett comes back I guess he'll be very impressed. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC))

Thanks guys! I am pleased. Do I need to do anything to return it to mainspace? Msrasnw why would you rather not interact in anyway with me?! I'm a nice person. Marcushamblett (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)