This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article's Revision history there has been an edit war since 19:22, 17 November 2008 when User:124.171.60.153 ( talk) added a Review link to the infobox. It was deleted by User:Dan arndt ( talk | contribs ) with an edit summary: non-professional review. Subsequently the review was returned by User:203.158.52.39, User:124.168.129.72, User:124.170.169.183, User:124.170.125.145 and each time was reverted by Dan arndt. Thereafter further inclusions and deletions occurred with edit summaries supplying the main dialogue between various editors. Currently the article has a protection to prevent anonymous reverting until 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC).
The article currently includes the contentious review link. To provide background on this dispute I will categorise the edit summaries provided as either Keep or Delete:
Keep | Delete |
---|---|
Undid revision 253091498 by Dan arndt (talk)how is this not a professional review? | It's a blog site! just one individual's opinion |
Undid revision 253496151 no, its a music news and reviews site for which a number of people write for. theres no way you can say that can't be there and any of the others can | Undid revision 253527086 by 124.170.169.183 (talk) non-professional review (individual opinion) |
Undid revision 254120422 (talk)just because you say so doesn't make it true. explain how this is a personal opinion while the others aren't | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 254887157 by 220.235.41.232 (talk) | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 255159378 by 202.71.164.41 (talk)undo vandalism | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 255168207 by 202.71.164.41 (talk) | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 256321351 by 220.235.39.36 (talk) {{subst:uw-delete3}} | removed non-professional reviews in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (ie Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists) |
Undid revision 256936641You have an incorrect intepretation on what constitutes a non-professional site. The ones listed allow anyone to sign up and write about it. PoA does not. | Undid revision 257022016 by 124.168.144.75 (talk) polaro.com is non-professional review |
Undid revision 257022213 by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)and that website has what to do with that? | Undid revision 257113213 by 124.168.144.75 still doesn't meet the standards of a professional review refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums |
Undid revision 257164543 there is nothing in there that disqualifies it from being a professional review. | Deleted review as the website has no editorial review and is essentially a personal blog as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums |
Undid revision 257236674 Wikiproject albums article says nothing about requiring editorial reviews. P of A is clearly not a blog site, contains a number of writers who write only of music | As previously indicated there is no editorial review (paid or volunteer) of this website so essentially it is just a blog site and does not constitute a professional review - have reported as edit war |
Undid revision 257241494 As previously indicated wikiproject article does not require editorial review and as previously indicated multiple times it is not a blog site |
Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
At this point, 19:29, 11 December 2008, William M. Connolley ( talk | contribs ) blocked the article from further anonymous reverting with: m (Protected Book of Lies (album): anon rv'ing ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC))))
Although not certain, it appears that most, if not all, of the Keep edit summaries are from anonymous editor(s) with few edits other than this article. Some of the Delete with no edit summaries supplied were also from anonymous editor(s). The main registered editor in favour of Delete is Dan arndt.
The contention revolves around what constitutes a Professional review. With Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums providing:
And later:
I favour the Delete option because:
If no further discussion is supplied, I propose deleting the link. Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a harsh review, but is it any worse than most pitchfork reviews? If their review for Shine On is considered professional than pretty much anything can be. Plus what seems to constitute a non professional review on the guidelines page seems to exist so people don't post reviews where all that is required is a valid email account to create an account and start writing. Given that this site has a few writers, it must be assumed that the general consensus of the album was that its terrible Cereal killer ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Book of Lies (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Book of Lies (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Start class:
C-class:
B-class:
|
Last edited at 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Lies (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article's Revision history there has been an edit war since 19:22, 17 November 2008 when User:124.171.60.153 ( talk) added a Review link to the infobox. It was deleted by User:Dan arndt ( talk | contribs ) with an edit summary: non-professional review. Subsequently the review was returned by User:203.158.52.39, User:124.168.129.72, User:124.170.169.183, User:124.170.125.145 and each time was reverted by Dan arndt. Thereafter further inclusions and deletions occurred with edit summaries supplying the main dialogue between various editors. Currently the article has a protection to prevent anonymous reverting until 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC).
The article currently includes the contentious review link. To provide background on this dispute I will categorise the edit summaries provided as either Keep or Delete:
Keep | Delete |
---|---|
Undid revision 253091498 by Dan arndt (talk)how is this not a professional review? | It's a blog site! just one individual's opinion |
Undid revision 253496151 no, its a music news and reviews site for which a number of people write for. theres no way you can say that can't be there and any of the others can | Undid revision 253527086 by 124.170.169.183 (talk) non-professional review (individual opinion) |
Undid revision 254120422 (talk)just because you say so doesn't make it true. explain how this is a personal opinion while the others aren't | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 254887157 by 220.235.41.232 (talk) | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 255159378 by 202.71.164.41 (talk)undo vandalism | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 255168207 by 202.71.164.41 (talk) | <no edit summary supplied> |
Undid revision 256321351 by 220.235.39.36 (talk) {{subst:uw-delete3}} | removed non-professional reviews in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (ie Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists) |
Undid revision 256936641You have an incorrect intepretation on what constitutes a non-professional site. The ones listed allow anyone to sign up and write about it. PoA does not. | Undid revision 257022016 by 124.168.144.75 (talk) polaro.com is non-professional review |
Undid revision 257022213 by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)and that website has what to do with that? | Undid revision 257113213 by 124.168.144.75 still doesn't meet the standards of a professional review refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums |
Undid revision 257164543 there is nothing in there that disqualifies it from being a professional review. | Deleted review as the website has no editorial review and is essentially a personal blog as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums |
Undid revision 257236674 Wikiproject albums article says nothing about requiring editorial reviews. P of A is clearly not a blog site, contains a number of writers who write only of music | As previously indicated there is no editorial review (paid or volunteer) of this website so essentially it is just a blog site and does not constitute a professional review - have reported as edit war |
Undid revision 257241494 As previously indicated wikiproject article does not require editorial review and as previously indicated multiple times it is not a blog site |
Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
At this point, 19:29, 11 December 2008, William M. Connolley ( talk | contribs ) blocked the article from further anonymous reverting with: m (Protected Book of Lies (album): anon rv'ing ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC))))
Although not certain, it appears that most, if not all, of the Keep edit summaries are from anonymous editor(s) with few edits other than this article. Some of the Delete with no edit summaries supplied were also from anonymous editor(s). The main registered editor in favour of Delete is Dan arndt.
The contention revolves around what constitutes a Professional review. With Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums providing:
And later:
I favour the Delete option because:
If no further discussion is supplied, I propose deleting the link. Shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a harsh review, but is it any worse than most pitchfork reviews? If their review for Shine On is considered professional than pretty much anything can be. Plus what seems to constitute a non professional review on the guidelines page seems to exist so people don't post reviews where all that is required is a valid email account to create an account and start writing. Given that this site has a few writers, it must be assumed that the general consensus of the album was that its terrible Cereal killer ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Book of Lies (album). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Book of Lies (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Start class:
C-class:
B-class:
|
Last edited at 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Lies (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)