Jump to content

Talk:Third Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I'd like to propose inserting at the top of this article

For the Wisconsin musical group Gomers, see The Gomers

as on The Gomers page, this is at the top helping direct people here:

For the fan club family of the band Third Day, see Gomers

i hope this would be satisfactory? Bifftar (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

style

[edit]

The first person is inapropriate for an encylopedia article and some of the explanation are unclear. I will attempt to correct this. 24.137.78.34 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you work too hard, it may make sense to revert back to the May 5 version of the page...At that point it was in pretty good shape. -Rholton 01:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I didn't check that. Oh well it's mostly done now. Except for that bit about Gomers. I don't really think the whole long story is aproptiate, it sounds a bit like a sermon, not an article, but I'd like some one else's opinion who knows more about the band to see if they can improve it more consrructively. The best I could do has been done. 24.137.78.34 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the band well, but I can tell that the Gomers section needs a major overhaul to begin to meet wikipedia standards. Someone should tag this page... I don't know how. I think this page should be reverted to the May 5 version, bat that's going pretty far back, so I thought I should ask if anyone has (reasonable) problems with that? --TorriTorri 05:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of the band, but I think the current version lacks NPOV. Reads like a word-by-word promotional excerpt from their webpage. Thief12 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Revision

[edit]

Awards; 2004: The LP Wire was nominated for Best Rock Gospel Album of the Year but did not win. (Audio Adrenaline won for Worldwide)(source: CNN) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booradley7 (talk • contribs)blp=yes.

Proposed Deletion

[edit]

I received a message saying that this article was proposed for deletion, yet I don't see the reasons for this. The article was subject to several edits ending up in a POV version that seemed lifted from their webpage (as stated in the above comments) but I think I did a decent cleanup of it. Any words about this? Thief12 18:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Offerings2.jpg

[edit]

Image:Offerings2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Offerings-AWorshipAlbum.jpg

[edit]

Image:Offerings-AWorshipAlbum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Third Day Album Cover.jpg

[edit]

Image:Third Day Album Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some free photos

[edit]

Anyone who wants to upload a free photo of the band or its members can find some at [1]. The Evil Spartan 19:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tag

[edit]

I've just added a tag to this article marking it as essay-like. I don't want to edit it myself, as I don't have any knowledge of the sector. However, it needs some serious re-writing to make it comply with Wikipedia's standards. Phrases such as "We appreciate Brad’s many contributions" that have been lifted from a blog make up large parts of the Members section, which potentially contravenes the copyright rules of the site. Much of what has been lifted from other sites is unecessary and doesn't illustrate any point that cannot be made by rephrasing. Other sections, such as "the worship portion of the concert was becoming more "powerful"" seem to quote a source that is not cited. The history sections seems to have been written by someone either in the band, or involved closely with them, and is written as an emotive biography, rather than an encyclopaedic account. If someone who has knowledge of the band already would be able to perform a cleanup, it'd be much appreciated. drewmunn (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You also added some dangling bold text as well. I removed both, however the editor who has done a lot of work on this article recently should see this discussion. --
I've reinstated the tag, but not the text, seeing as that was the overall aim. The text was a result of a a misplaced tap of my iPad when I was editing, but the tag remains. It should be kept until the article has been edited to meet Wikipedia's standards. Until then, it invites other editors to help clean up the article. drewmunn (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how the tags work. You don't understand who will be editing the article though. It's not a big deal either way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind who edits the article, and I don't really need to know to place the tag. I placed it there as a visual prompt for people who know more than me about the subject to edit the article, as well as to mark it in the cleanup category for editors to find. I don't mean to demean you by describing above how to tag is used, I wrote it to clear up the facts for other, potentially newer, editors who do not understand. Thanks drewmunn (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Third Day. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Third Day. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened There!?

[edit]

Why does Wiki show that I made the change TO thrash metal when it was me who reverted the change? That makes no sense. I noticed someone had changed the genre from Christian Rock to Thrash Metal, and all I did was revert the change, with the comment "Uh... No" and for some reason, it makes it look like i was the guilty party. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UtahCountryBoy: This shows the change as you describe while this edit says "Reverted 1 edit by 71.75.51.112 (talk) to last revision by UtahCountryBoy" (emphasis mine). Can you provide a diff that shows you were reverted or made a change to thrash? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. It makes me look like the bad guy. But all I did was change it back to Christian Rock. I don't know why it shows the edit to Thrash was mine. It wasn't. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not make you look like the bad guy. It makes it look like you had the last good revision. There is no edit that shows you to have added that genre. You're reading it wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Third Day. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Day&oldid=1211961005"