Archives

1 Dec 2008—Nov 2009 2 Nov 2009—Feb 2010 3 Feb 2010—

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter (Febrauary 2010)

The WikiProject Theatre Newsletter! Issue 5 - February 2010 Welcome to the latest WikiProject Theatre newsletter (the first in quite a while!) bringing you news of what's going on in the project, what progress we're making, and how you can get involved. Latest News All theatre articles currently tagged with a project banner have now been assessed for quality. There are still plenty to assess for importance, though - see the article assessment page for details. There is now a News section on the main project page, updated automatically to keep us informed of developments in theatre articles. Collaboration of the Month Theatre has been nominated as the next project collaboration. This could be an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of one of our most important articles - listed as one of Wikipedia's top 1000 most vital articles - but it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for even good article nomination! Stop by the collaboration page for tips on how to improve an article, to add your support, or to suggest alternative or future collaborations. Jobs you can do Any and all improvements to theatre-related articles will help the project, but if you're looking for something to do, have a look at the to-do list. Some current areas of priority are: Improving top-importance articles Prioritisation of unknown-importance articles Creation of requested article stubs If you are currently working on a particular topic or area of the project, and would like to muster some support from other editors, feel free to add tasks to the to-do list. Or even think about setting up an informal working group - create a project subpage to organise tasks in a central location. Remember you can always discuss ideas with others at the project talk page. New members The past month has seen Poisonborz, 15lsoucy, LaNaranja and Phaeton23 join us - welcome to you all! If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project? And finally... Don't forget to add the {{User WPTheatre}} userbox to your userpage, and {{WikiProject Theatre}} banner to article talk pages to spread the word about the project! You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Members on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the list, or click here to stop receiving it. If you have any news or announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.

I am looking to put up a personal page for each member of the international multiplatinum rock band The Killers (Island Def Jam Records, 15 million records+ sold). One of them (lead singer) has a page, the other three do not yet (they were deleted each time). These members each perform interviews for various international publications. They each have fan groups and they have each been featured for their superior talent at their instruments in internationally published (ie. 'Bass Guitar Magazine' cover June 2009, 'Bass Player' Magazine, 'Drummer' Magazine cover June 2009, 'Rhythm Magazine', 'Modern Drummer' Magazine, 'Drumhead Magazine', and 'Guitarist' Magazine May 2009, etc) magazines. What do I need to do to restore/write wikipedia pages for these guys? I am more than happy to have my proposed pages approved by a wikipedia staff member. I am sure that you will find that they meet all standards for personal pages. Below I have written some of the publications that each can be seen in individually. The actual publications I can provide sources for or they can be found also at the painstakingly collected www.thekillersfansite.com. I can find many more publications like these if needed.

Dave Keuning: About.com (interview) Main Stage Centrail (T in the Park, Scotland, interview) Musicradar.com (interview) Whisky Soda: Alt Music Magazine (Germany, interview) Rolling Stone Magazine (Spain, Nov 2008, interview) HotPress (Feb 2009, interview) Colorado Springs Independent (newspaper, Jan 2009, interview) stuff.co.nz (Jan 2009, apology for show cancellation and interview) Timeslive (interview about show at the "Dome") TVNZ (interview) threedworld.com.au (Feb 2009, Australia, interview) Hiwatt Endorsement (current)

Mark Stoermer: Studio Brussell (Germany, interview) Lowlands Festival (UK, interview) Bass Guitar Magazine (March/April 2007, interview) Bass Guitar Magazine (June 2009, cover story and interview) Bass Player Magazine (Feb 2005/Feb 2010 interview) Las Vegas City Life (interview) muziek.nl (June 2009, rt before Pink Pop Music Festival, Netherlands, interview) Hiwatt Endorsement (current)

Ronnie Vannucci Jr: Auckland BDO (Norway, interview) azcentral.com (interview) The Vine (interview) Drumhead Magazine (Oct 2008, interview) Rhythm Magazine (Nov 2008, interview) Louisville.com (Jan 2009, interview) National Post (Jan 2009, back stage in Toronto, Canada, interview) Modern Drummer (March 2009, interview) Edmonton Journal (April 2009, Canada interview) Vindy.com (May 2009, interview) Las Vegas Review Journal (interview) thebejinger.com (Jan 2009, China, interview) Craviotto Drum Company Endorsement (current) and many many more endorsements

Below are links to the starts of each of their articles--can you please restore these? I will polish them up to specks if you will do that. I think a better way to approach these this second time would be to focus on their instruments and the specs associated with them for the fans who are interested in playing like them, etc. Something similar to the pages up for members of the rock band Kings of Leon (Jared Followill, etc) <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Keuning&oldid=326671755>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr&oldid=309104025>, and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Stoermer&oldid=326272613>.

Please help me. If you would read through this I am sure that you will find these persons worthy of wikipedia pages.

Sincerely, Joe Meservy (on wikipedia 'waytagojoe') joemeservy@gmail.com You can also contact the management and law firm for each of these persons at http://www.reynolds-lawyers.com to confirm details.--Waytagojoe (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at WP:EAR and left a talkback on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read over these two articles which are mostly prepared. I am happy to adjust as needed in order to have these approved as pages worthy of Wikipedia. I am still working on the third: User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer

I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.

Sincerely, Joe Meservy --Waytagojoe (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jezhotwells,

Thanks for restoring the Kazim Ali article. What a weird vandalism...I'm just barely figuring out how to "talk" here, so if I don't respond, it's because I couldn't figure out how.

Thanks again, Books2read (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Books2read[reply]

Hi jezhotwells, thanks for your recent feedback and guidance on the BT:musician article that I've been monitoring for awhile. I'm starting to get the hang of what is wanted/expected and think I will start branching out and doing updates to other electronica musicians. I'm looking for some feedback and guidance on the recent edits I've made. Would you mind looking at my contributions to some other album/biography pages and let me know if my edits were reasonable and justified? It seems that many blp articles to electronic musicians are in a sad state. Thanks! Fctchkr (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Loud Machine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aspects (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for the info. I hadn't heard of Fred's demise - very sad, he was a great character. Give my regards to the Bag o'Nails and the Adam & Eve! --Weydonian (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Amity University Rajasthan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable/ Notability has not been established. There are more than 300 universities in India. I do not see the point in having articles on each and every such private university. Please note the original contribution of this article was copyvio. See history of the article for details. (If you can establish notabilty you are welcome to do so.)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nilotpal42 (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for directing me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Notability as I was not aware of it. Also, I believe I had not saved the page after placing the WP:PROD notice on the article. Sorry for the confusion. I had notified you about the proposed deletion only to take into account more views on its deletion.Nilotpal42 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I've left a comment. --Wintonian (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jezhotwells. I know you've only just recently done your review of the article, but I've brought it to GAR. I don't like to say this, but I thought your review was completely without foundation and merit. Could you tell me, specifically, what your problems with the article are, and where non-compliance with GA standards can be demonstrated? I would be happy to address whatever concerns you have, but your main contentions show a problem with the subject, not with the article. For example:

• Where you write "The article appears to merely rehash some very slender and apparently disputed commentary and reviews of books of commentary on some slender original sources. The title could just as well be Some speculations on the relationship between Philip the Arab and Christianity." That is precisely the point. Wikipedia articles represent the sources in a fair and neutral mater. The sort of writing you find in the article is how the reliable sources treat the matter, and so it is how Wikipedia must treats the matter. We cannot speak as though there was a definite object there, going by the name of "Philip the Arab's feelings on Christianity": that is why the point is disputed. This is neutrality, this is verifiability, this is no original research all wrapped up in a ball.
• "The writing is not clear. The grammar is fine, but the prose is convoluted and does not flow easily. It is not readily accessible to the general reader of an encyclopaedia." Where, why, and for what reasons? I have had the prose looked over by Nikkimaria, Malleus Fatuorum, and Ealdgyth. They all expressed their satisfaction. Without specifics, I cannot hope to address your complaint.
• "After re-reading the article four times over three days, I am non the wiser about what Philip's relationship to Christianity was." As it should be. As you can glean from reading the final section of the article, modern scholarship is non the wiser about what Philip's relationship to Christianity was.
• "The article is far too long and unfocussed, rambling over many events in preceding and succeeding periods which add little to understanding of the subject matter. Whole sections are about other emperors and time periods." Necessary context. As for "long", the statistics and guidelines on page length disagree with you. As for "unfocussed", this page has, to my mind, a very clear structure and focus, developed across the whole. "rambling over many events in preceding and succeeding periods which add little to understanding of the subject matter": perhaps you need read them again. All address mid-third century Christianity (what kind of Christianity would Philip have adopted?), Christianity in the Arab world and Near East (what kind of Christianity was Philip surrounded by?), imperial policy on Christianity (how did other emperors treat Christians? was Philip different, and if so, how?). As for the final bit, "Whole sections are about other emperors and time periods", this is untrue. No section does this. All are tied to Philip.
• "It appears to me that few of the concerns expressed by the initial reviewers and commentators have been addressed." Completely incorrect.
• "parts appears to be the nominator's own commentary on scholars commentating on earlier scholar's commentaries on some fragmentary original sources". "parts"? What parts? If you can demonstrate original research, I will excise it. To my knowledge, there is none.

So, um. You should not have failed this. If you had something to say in furtherance of a review, you should have done so. As you have no legitimate substantive problems, you should have passed the article. Cool? Cool! G.W. (Talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]