NewTestLeper79 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:::Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. '''Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.''' As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. |
:::Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. '''Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.''' As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. |
||
:So, don't pretend like we're both in the wrong to the same extent or in the same way; it's intellectually dishonest and petty. If you want to talk about the dispute, let's. If not, then stop editing this page. The one thing you definitely ''shouldn't'' do is keep on reverting and give some condescending edit summary. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]·[[User talk:Koavf|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]·[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]] 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
:So, don't pretend like we're both in the wrong to the same extent or in the same way; it's intellectually dishonest and petty. If you want to talk about the dispute, let's. If not, then stop editing this page. The one thing you definitely ''shouldn't'' do is keep on reverting and give some condescending edit summary. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]·[[User talk:Koavf|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]·[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]] 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::: I don't have time to read the tome above since I'm heading out the door, but I'm hoping you explained your reasons for your blatant lies to an admin. - [[User:Dudesleeper|Dudesleeper]] 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:29, 16 September 2006
Aftermath (song)
Go to the Aftermath (song) page and get it moved. The song is an instrumental off of an album by Phish. The disambig page only mentions the R.E.M. song and this was the link.
Drive had to be moved even though Drive (song) had not been used, so same should go on for aftermath! Bsd987 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- All fixed. Easy to do with the move button at the top of the page. --badlydrawnjeff 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Non-singles that are notable
Which songs are notable that were not singles? I think "Country Feedback" is notable since it is Stipe's proclaimed favorite and thus the favorite of many R.E.M. fans. "Texarkana" is notable since it charted on the mainstream rock charts based on airplay. "Monty Got a Raw Deal" and "Let Me In" are notable since the first is a tribute to actor Montgomery Clift and the latter is in memory of Kurt Cobain. "All the Right Friends" already has an article and is notable since it appeared in a movie and on a "best of" collection. But if this is the case, then "Romance" should get an article too....
What other non-singles are notable enough to deserve an article? Bsd987 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Official and unofficial compilations
Rather unhelpfully, BGC included his reasons for the separation in the three unofficial compilation articles: "Because it is an unauthorized release, this album is generally not considered to be part of R.E.M.'s official discography." I'd have to agree, not least because no chart placements are given for any of the three.
Also, I deleted the Not Bad for No Tour live EP since it still hasn't had an article started. - Dudesleeper 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unofficial? The albums aren't unofficial, if that means bootlegs; they were released by I.R.S. legally, regardless of whether or not the band had any involvement. Not Bad for No Tour wasn't a compilation anyway, so I made a new section for it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I actually have a copy of "Not Bad for No Tour," so it'll be easy for me to finish an article for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Article's done. If someone can fill in its proper place in the discography for the infobox, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I actually have a copy of "Not Bad for No Tour," so it'll be easy for me to finish an article for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: the source. I realise that its being a flash-powered site kills the link. It's not too hard to go there manually, I hope. Can we focus on other things now? No, thought not. - Dudesleeper 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Official albums
Arbitrary The distinction between "official" and "unofficial" albums is meaningless and arbitrary. The band doesn't need to authorize to release material to which they do not own the publishing rights. If a band disowns an album, that's all fine and well, but it doesn't stop existing or become some secondary class of album; it's still just as real as it was before. Creating capricious divisions of albums just encourages others to come along and decide what they think is the true R.E.M. catalogue. This isn't some quite colloquialism like "fifth Beatle", it's a matter of simple factual accuracy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparent dispute
It seems Koavf has reported me for breaking the three-revert rule (even though he has reverted the same article four times today). In order to make the admin's life a little easier, below is the evidence against his claims. First of all, here's Koavf's report:
- ===User: Dudesleeper reported by User:Koavf (Result:)===
- Three revert rule violation on R.E.M. discography.
- R.E.M._discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Comments This user has refused to discuss on the talk page of the article or user talk. The last thing I did was post a {{disputeabout}} tag (without reverting the disputed content of the article), and put a comment on talk. He reverted with the edit summary "(Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting)" which is odd, considering he never did explain nor offer any sources. Please intervene. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And my offerings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R.E.M._discography&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BGC#Edit_summaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dudesleeper#R.E.M._discography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R.E.M._discography#Official_and_unofficial_compilations
- Dudesleeper 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The inherent difference I've reverted three times today (including one the second the day began), and you've reverted four times today, including one that took out a disputed tag with the bull-headed edit summary I gave above. I wanted to talk about it, you didn't. Needless to say, BGC never bothered to justify his actions. You'll also notice that you were vandalizing the article (emphasis added):
- Improper use of dispute tags
- Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.
- Improper use of dispute tags
- So, don't pretend like we're both in the wrong to the same extent or in the same way; it's intellectually dishonest and petty. If you want to talk about the dispute, let's. If not, then stop editing this page. The one thing you definitely shouldn't do is keep on reverting and give some condescending edit summary. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have time to read the tome above since I'm heading out the door, but I'm hoping you explained your reasons for your blatant lies to an admin. - Dudesleeper 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)