| Revision as of 06:33, 14 December 2006 editPumeleon (talk | contribs)1,278 edits →Sources for EVERYTHING?← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:34, 14 December 2006 edit undoPumeleon (talk | contribs)1,278 editsm →Sources for EVERYTHING?Next edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| == Sources for EVERYTHING? == | == Sources for EVERYTHING? == | ||
| Okay. I understand that wikipedia articles need to site its sources, but wow. Does there need to be a reference for every single line of text? Visit pages like Hypnoskull, 4 Strings, even DJ Tiesto, and you won't even find a reference list. The level of nitpicking in this article is high. Any rational reason for it?] 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | Okay. I understand that wikipedia articles need to site its sources, but wow. Does there need to be a reference for every single line of text? Visit pages like Hypnoskull, 4 Strings, even DJ Tiesto, and you won't even find a reference list. The level of nitpicking in this article is high. Any rational reason for it?] 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Because SPUI is disruptive, mainly. He enjoys gaming the system to troll. ] 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | :Because SPUI is disruptive, mainly. He enjoys gaming the system to troll. You see, he dosn't like the fact that this page exists. So he took any attempt he could to complain about it, not expecting there to be this many sources. He can only move the goalposts so far. ] 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:34, 14 December 2006
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
ΔMAX Leak/Controversy
I mean, The whole ΔMAX fiasco, should it be explained so people that don't know what ΔMAX is won't get in troble on sites where discussion of it is prohibited? ToyoWolf 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay here's my official statement on ΔMAX. There's no problem with it being discussed. What I don't want discussed on the forums is distribution of it, people saying "Hey I have the stepfile" or "Where can I get the mp3?" Other than that, hey if you like the song, talk about it! Bill Shillito 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Possible Deletion
People should 1) make a backup of this page in case it gets deleted and 2) find another wiki that will take the article even if its not as notable as other things. You can probably find such a wiki @ www.wikia.com (I found one, Electronic Music Wiki) --Notmyhandle 09:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
In the case an article is deleted, you can always request temporary undeletion for a transwiki effort. Pumeleon 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Original research and unverified claims?
Is that really neccesary, anymore? Excepting the track listing, which came from DM Ashura himself, and is not likely to be questioned, almost every other bit of information has a source. I mean, there's seven sources for this article now, on this one-and-a-half page article. Isn't that enough to remove the OR/UC template? Pumeleon 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Second Comment - I really fail to understand how it can be tagged as unreliable when there are sources that meet all criteria for being a reliable and verifiable source. I would like to know how anything linked to is either unreliable or unverifiable. There were certainly no responses to my fufilling the challenges of finding sources for statements in the AfD page. Furthermore, the closing admin stated that the issue was not addressed. I tend to disagree since I addressed every question of sourcing in said AfD page. Pumeleon 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Third Comment - I'm failing to see the unreliability too. Can someone clarify how it fails to meet the criteria? If there's no legit issue, then I'm opposed to deletion. TBH, I thought the references were very reliable. If there are issues they can be edited, deletion isn't necessary here. Lunarctic 10:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
See the now-closed AfD debate, and my notes in that little grey box at the top. In tagging the article with {{unreliable}} I was simply carrying out the consensus reached by the debate as I saw it. The concerns raised in the debate was that the article wasn't based on independent, reliable, non-trivial sources. The only substantial source is the article from the student newspaper at the college the subject attends, the significance of which as a source can be questioned.
As an example of the concerns in the AfD that I mention, Confusing Manifestation and wtfunkymonkey raised the concern that there was a lack of truly independent sources, that is sources not directly connected with the subject, or DDR, Konami etc. --bainer (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether or not Orange Lounge Radio or Bemanistyle are DDR fansites, they are historically reliable sources on the subject of DDR with a history of publicly announcing and correcting their mistakes, inferring an editorial process. For the inclusion of V-Rares, I would argue that these two site are in fact, VERY reliable. Beyond that, a subject's home page can be used as a reliable source for biographical information that is not self-serving, per Biographies of Living Persons. Pumeleon 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- They are not necessarily reliable sources, but the albums themselves are for the fact that he has tracks on them. I don't object to including them for additional confirmation of his tracks on the V-Rares. Right now, most of what needs citation is the tracks he has in O2Jam and FFR; the FFR song list is not acceptable because it doesn't list artists. Normally the actual game would be an acceptable source, but you cannot download or buy FFR, so if the site goes down, it cannot be verified. --SPUI (T - C) 08:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The O2Jam section had references. I've restored those. I do admit after looking at it that the FFR reference isn't valid since it doesn't give the artists of the songs (it doesn't even spell some of the song titles correctly). --Coredesat 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - I didn't realize that the O2Jam reference was different from the one that announced that he was being licensed. --SPUI (T - C) 08:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The O2Jam section had references. I've restored those. I do admit after looking at it that the FFR reference isn't valid since it doesn't give the artists of the songs (it doesn't even spell some of the song titles correctly). --Coredesat 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- They are not necessarily reliable sources, but the albums themselves are for the fact that he has tracks on them. I don't object to including them for additional confirmation of his tracks on the V-Rares. Right now, most of what needs citation is the tracks he has in O2Jam and FFR; the FFR song list is not acceptable because it doesn't list artists. Normally the actual game would be an acceptable source, but you cannot download or buy FFR, so if the site goes down, it cannot be verified. --SPUI (T - C) 08:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the reference that he is known to the "Bemani community" for making "MaxX ResurrexXion" as DJ Demon, and that "neoMAX" brought him "into the public eye"? Where is the reference that he has become popular in the "Bemani community"? (the O2Jam article says "beat game community" - not all music games are Bemani; Stepmania isn't even Bemani!) You might also want to read WP:MOSCL before reverting. --SPUI (T - C) 09:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read WP:POINT (especially about gaming the system), WP:MEATPUPPET, and WP:ACM before editing again. Pumeleon 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:DICK, WP:AGF, please. 65.118.187.102 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's REALLY difficult to assume good faith when the poster makes comments like "hahaha pwned" when the page gets blanked or "dmashura has a wikipedia article? hahah". Good faith is for people who don't consistently troll and have a history of disruption and blocks for these things. Pumeleon 09:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:DICK, WP:AGF, please. 65.118.187.102 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the previous two reverts I've made, 65.118.187.102 has twice deleted a statement for which a reference has been clearly provided. The phrase "and his music has become popular in the beat game community." is sourced by Reference 3. Bill Shillito 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it's not. The O2Jam reference says that you were well-known, not that your music was popular. Please stop adding unsourced material, especially to your own article. --SPUI (T - C) 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looking over it again, it says that "he is well-known...for his music". Using that context, saying his music was popular in the community is saying the same thing, since without the music he wouldn't be well-known. --Coredesat 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument doesn't make any sense; if you think "saying his music was popular in the community is saying the same thing", then the disputed clause is redundant to the previous sentence, which says that "he was known in the music game community for remixes of songs". It did say well-known originally, but someone (not me) changed it. --SPUI (T - C) 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at it again, I see what you mean - just change the "was" to "is" in the last sentence and it should be sorted out. --Coredesat 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument doesn't make any sense; if you think "saying his music was popular in the community is saying the same thing", then the disputed clause is redundant to the previous sentence, which says that "he was known in the music game community for remixes of songs". It did say well-known originally, but someone (not me) changed it. --SPUI (T - C) 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources for EVERYTHING?
Okay. I understand that wikipedia articles need to site its sources, but wow. Does there need to be a reference for every single line of text? Visit pages like Hypnoskull, 4 Strings, even DJ Tiesto, and you won't even find a reference list. The level of nitpicking in this article is high. Any rational reason for it?Eshmasesh 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because SPUI is disruptive, mainly. He enjoys gaming the system to troll. You see, he dosn't like the fact that this page exists. So he took any attempt he could to complain about it, not expecting there to be this many sources. He can only move the goalposts so far. Pumeleon 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)