Jump to content

Talk:Leftfield

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

Untitled

[edit]

What about the music genre Leftfield? --Abdull 10:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it was named after the group. I'm not sure where the comment that their music falls into the "Chill Out" category came from. Greg Birdsall 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a disambiguation for this purpose Martin Hinks 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals

[edit]
British Band, so let's refer to them as "were" and not "was". We aren't Americans. 88.109.181.194 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leftield was a British Band. Leftfield were an English electronic music duo. Martin Hinks 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:A Final Hit.jpg

[edit]

Image:A Final Hit.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Fixed Chappy • T • C • 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Leftfield-Leftism (album cover).jpg

[edit]

Image:Leftfield-Leftism (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 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 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Fixed. Chappy TC 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1996 gig ban from Brixton academy

[edit]

Afraid it's not the case - they played a gig there in 2000. See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hinks (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mean all of the information you removed was un-true. They ban was most probably lifted after a period of time. Unfortunately a poster sold on E-bay (which may not even be legitimate) doesn't provide enough evidence for this not being correct. ChappyTC 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. I have provided a source that appears to disprove an unsourced statement in the article. As per WP:SOURCE:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
I'd suggest the passage is rewritten to indicate that a formal ban was never in place...
From an interview with Neil Barnes here:
Are you still banned from Brixton Academy?
"It’s more the sound system than us personally. It did cause problems. Plaster came off the wall. But in France our DJ was surrounded by police. They have more severe noise restrictions over there."
As for the poster being a fake - that's not a great line of argument to take as 1.) it isn't (poster also on sale [here], a page confirming the dates here and another here) and 2.) it's irrelevant - it is legitimate to remove unsourced statements: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" - WP:SOURCE
I'll give you a few days to rewrite it, but if not I'm going to remove it again. Martin Hinks 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that all statements on wikipedia must be sourced. I have reverted many edits in the past myself due to lack of sources and actively promote people using sources. I however did not add this information (that I can remember anyway).
The point I was trying to get across was that not all of the information you removed was in regards to the reason for removal. You stated that they weren't banned however you also removed information regarding one of their gigs being so loud that it shook plaster from the walls/ceiling. This was my main reason for reverting your edit. I apologise if this did not come across. My statement regarding the poster was intended to indicate that ebay is not the most reliable of sources, and that the item could be a fake, not that it was a fake. I knew the information about them being banned due to the sound system affecting the building was a fact yet had little time to when I was making my edit to add a source, therefore I just reverted it, I did intend to come back later and add a source. The statement does not state whether it was a formal or informal ban, however I can see how this can be misinterpreted by people, and as you have proved it was lifted. I shall re-edit the text to include these sources and add that the ban was lifted. ChappyTC 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, sorry if I sounded overly aggressive yesterday - just re-read it and it comes across stronger than I meant it to! That's much better now... would be cool to get this article sourced up so more people can join in the Leftfield goodness. I've done quite a lot of work on Fluke in the past and I think that it is at a pretty good standard... Thanks for the reply and sorting this out :) Martin Hinks 07:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the comment, I didn't take it negatively as I know sometimes comments typed out can come across with negativity they were never intended to have. I agree, would be good to see this at GA standard. I did a bit of improvement / additions to the sub-articles (mainly singles) in-between finishing uni and starting full-time work, however don't have as much time nowadays to devote to wikipedia, and half of that seems to be removing vandalism from pages on my watch-list. If I can help in any-way to get this to GA status I would be more than willing, I would love to help spread the word about a group who's music I feel still sounds fresh today as it ever did, shame they split really. ChappyTC 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Why did they split? AJUK Talk!! 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide more information on the bands split? The article is missing this section and the "reformation" section seems odd without it. 79616gr (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leftfield. 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) 11:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leftfield. 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) 08:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leftfield. 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) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leftfield&oldid=1206332335"