Talk:Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip

message: If this is not deletion-worthy........ oh, for *(&*(^&~!'s sakes. I can't even bring myself to start building an argument as to why "dans le sac vs Scroobius Pip" (wow!) may or may not merit deletion along with the 5,000 WP articles deleted DAILY.... Jeezus kee-rist, people -- NOT EVERYTHING THAT EVER MADE IT INTO PRINT IS WIKI-WORTHY'... (argh -- looking for inert objects to kick, stalking back and forth, throwing hands up into the air in disgust that this is even apparently a debatable issue to sundry paint-thinner-sniffing non compos mentis's...)  A Doon (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm Canadian, and I was introducted to these guys after an American blogger I read linked to their "Thou Shalt Always Kill" video on Youtube.  I looked 'em up on Wikipedia, and I'm glad the entry was here.  
I've been e-mailing the video link to my friends, so I wouldn't be surprised if the page gets a few more hits.  
Cat
130.63.176.77 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *I* think they deserve a mention 

message: i have cleaned up the article. information specific to "thou shalt always kill" belongs on that page, not about the artist, so i have removed it. Long quotes from myspace are not relevant either (about powerstations!?!). don't post information just to fill up the page; if there is little available, the page should be small.
They have charted at #30 in the UK top 40, so they fit the notability rules; "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." Bungalowbill 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "dan le sac" seems to be lower case in all the references I've seen. —Ashley Y 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  update.. 

message: Where is the source for this? Searching the name pulled up no Google hits at all, so calling this 'highly publicised' seems somewhat dubious. Jacob1453 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's issue of Music Week has their surnames down as Stephens and Meads. Technohead1980 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Amar Halarh 

message: :Image:Dan Le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip.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 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dan Le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip.jpg

message: Appears to be the official name, opposed to "Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip". Big Luth (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (although "vs" seems to begin with a capital) per these two links  . Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip 

message: I think especially in the light of Pip's solo album reaching 7th in the iTunes charts and 35th in the UK Top 40 we should possibly give him his own article and keep it separate from the le sac vs Pip one (and then do the same for Dan)? I have no idea how to do that anyway, just wondered what you all thought? BenAGR (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this, Scroobius Pip definitely deserves his own page, especially because of particular-ness and the lack of easy-to-access articles on him. Hell, I've listened to so many songs of his that I think you can learn more about him from those than articles. Of course I can understand if those songs aren't exactly the most reliable of sources. All in all, it would make sense to make Scroobius Pip his own article. LotsofSpace (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Articles for Dan and Pip? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422041654/http://www.sundaybest.net/site/releases/detail.php?articleId=510 to http://www.sundaybest.net/site/releases/detail.php?articleId=510
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dan le Sac Vs Scroobius Pip. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214191823/http://lesac.wordpress.com/remixes/ to http://lesac.wordpress.com/remixes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified