Template:Archive box collapsible

Hi! "We The People (band)" was my first article ever. And, I'm glad it didn't get deleted. Inline references have changed the look of the article. Thanks for the review to make it go live.

Elitropia (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article is more informative with your contribution, now. And, I'll sure consider your suggestions for the next article(s).

Elitropia (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, do you think We The People (band) article should be listed in We the People (disambiguation)? I'm not sure since the band name has the capital T. If so, I could edit immediately. Thanks.

Elitropia (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article. Thank you for the information.

Elitropia (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to congratulate you on the article passing GA. You put in an amazing amount of work into it and it payed off. Well done. Kitchen roll (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think the editor reviewing it put up a tag on the wikipedia:Good article nominations page - it was done in about 10 minutes! Are you sure in letting me have some of he credit for getting it to GA? Thanks if you are. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kohoutek :) Kitchen roll (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting the allusive chart info. on the Them single in Germany. Kitchen roll (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, love the story! Great that you've cleared that one up. It's really frustrating when you know something to be true on wiki but can't reference it because there's no reliable sources, so I'm glad there was something in the end. I'll see you around Kitchen roll (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Chimes of Freedom for GAN. We'll have to see how long it takes to move up the queue, since it is starting at #64. I think Tambourine Man started arounf #40, and Baby Blue was something like #52. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of The Byrds, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops ... I see I am late in a reply to you. Italics on "see" (and the like). I can't recall which style book this comes from, but am sure that in whichever one has guided me I've learned to use italics for "see", "see also", "but see", and the like. Rules apart, it works for me on a logical plane, as it is different in use than normal words, and the italics alert you to that fact.

Let me know if you want me to go searching for the genesis. But a quick google search yields this, this, this and this -- not all of them the best sources, just the fastest-found. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure, as always. Sorry I haven't had more time to focus on helping. Have been otherwise occupied, as you can perhaps tell from my talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia: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 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! This message has been sent courtesy of WikiProject Bob Dylan, which you are a member of. Our project now has two Featured Articles: Bob Dylan and Like a Rolling Stone, and three Good Articles: Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now, Baby Blue and Madhouse on Castle Street. Suggestions are now being canvassed for the next article to work on, as part of the WP Dylan collaboration team. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohoutek. First off, thanks for your great effort on The Byrds articles. I can't say I'm a fan of the group beyond their big hits, but I appreciate the good work.

Coming to my recent edits on the above article, I think you were wrong to revert my changes to the above article wholesale. There was a lot of overlinking; our readers know what the words 'band', 'drummer', 'novelization', 'film', 'songwriter' and 'short story' mean. You had also linked 'country music' twice in the lead. By linking everything in sight, you merely dilute the occurence of high-value links in the article. Further, that album chronology in the article pertains only to studio albums, as NBB is a studio album. The '1968 in music' link is completely unnecessary as well, and barely article text should contain bare external links per MoS (like that Snopes link, which is there in the EL anyway). Also, on Wikipedia, if you name a single as "Goin' Back"/"Change Is Now", I've seen that it implies that it is a double A-side single.

As for the album-ratings template, I'm afraid I don't see a consensus in those links you posted. In particular, the whole point of removing the reviews from the infobox was because we figured that rating-less reviews cannot easily be summarised in terms like 'favourable', 'unfavourable' and 'mixed'. That would mean that reviewers such as The New York Times shouldn't be included, but far less important sites like Sputnikmusic would have a place on the template. That makes no sense, does it? In all the articles where I removed the reviews from the infobox, I made sure that the critical reception was covered in the prose.

Please elaborate what the "factual inaccuracies & poor syntax" I added to the article are. Thanks—indopug (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: review consensus. I've been a part of the review template discussion every part of the way, and the actual consensus is that the review template is optional. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]