Talk:Futurebirds

Coverage[edit]

I deprodded the article as there is plenty of coverage to demonstrate notability. I'll add these as references later this evening, unless someone else wants to dive in and improve the article first:

--Michig (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those references would be much better used to improve the article than listed here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading my comment above. I'll assume you're not going to add them.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All glorious notable sources. Thank you Rustybrewski (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Ethics and Truth[edit]

Please message me if something is off but this is as objective as a fellow wiki editor can be. Rustybrewski (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rustybrewski, I appreciate you trying to expand the article, but Wikipedia has a rule against promotional language and bars anything that looks like an advertisement. "They are known for their high energy live productions...", "The album ricocheted from cosmic space, rock to rough around the edges, alt-country dreamscapes...", "The camaraderie between founding members ... has been ironclad...", these are all extremely promotional lines that are not appropriate for wikipedia. Please do no re-add them. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are quotes from articles written about them. One of them being The Rolling Stones 64.203.226.132 (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to set up a time to discuss this 64.203.226.132 (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I'm happy to help you write some language that's more appropriate using that as a sources. However, we (1) can't just wholesale copy parts of the RS review and (2) need to make sure the resulting language isn't overly promotional, as that isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any help would be awesome as well. Truly do have admiration for your work. Rustybrewski (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I like to edit and research as well. Rustybrewski (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your oversight but this is all factual. I am happy to alter any sorts of promotional language that you think I am using. I was careful only to use renown citations and sources. DO NOT ALTER PLEASE Rustybrewski (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there I have been trying to contact you. Do not edit Rustybrewski (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustybrewski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has extended the statutes I hope you escalate this to the proper non bot Rustybrewski (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Ethics[edit]

Happy to discuss Rustybrewski (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you want to discuss. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now two Rolling Stones articles Rustybrewski (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about this? You're welcome to use that as a source; again, you just can't use it to be overly promotional. Cite to it to make factual statements. "The album ricocheted from cosmic space, rock to rough around the edges, alt-country dreamscapes" is not a factual statement. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]