User talk:Hamilton Styden

Welcome!

Hello, Hamilton Styden, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fuhghettaboutit 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked?[edit]

Hi - You're not blocked now, right? I responded to your question at the help desk. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have been blocked from contacting the admin who deleted my page.......

Your IP is blocked. You can either post it here (it should be in the block message), or email the blocking admin.Shanel ^§ 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are meant to email the blocking admin.--Commander Keane 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you can place {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a copy of the block message and your IP.--Commander Keane 23:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you could edit my talk page, you aren't blocked anymore.Shanel ^§ 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme[edit]

My article was deleted along with its history....Where can I find it?

Unfortunately it can be difficult to track down. Any administrator can view the history or restore the article, in case there is something you need. How to find the page? Look in the deletion log. You can search by the aritcle title, by the user who deleted the article, or just scroll through all deletions if you know the approximate time it was deleted.--Commander Keane 03:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was on the garage rock band 1313 Mockingbird Lane. I just started to add links to articles and if I recall correctly, the person deleting used the Wiki term meaning it wasn't of importance.... There are scores of less known bands currently not being deleted. I gave sources: books and the All Music Guide which is a recommended source and the band is listed there but still it was deleted. Hamilton Styden 03:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((helpme)) The person deleting my page had this in their profile...(Non-notable band entries still greatly irk me for some reason, though. I'm not sure why.)

One thing you might try doing is leaving a comment on the user's talk page (User:JDoorjam) about the article. Try explaining to him why the article is notable, and provide your sources again. At the very least, it will open up a dialogue and may help you to understand why he deleted the article, or may help him understand why you think the article is appropriate. —Seqsea (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Help is here! Oh well, maybe becuase it's non notable, but you might want to tell the admin about it (the person who deleted your edit).

By the way, thank you for using Wikipedia's Help Page for Newcomers!IRC Channel-- 陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((helpme))

What is to stop people from singling out a user to delete submissions for fun? My entry was deleted for non notable, but from books and record sales this is not true.....I hadn't completely perfected the article but need to know how to resubmit. This band is no less notable than many of the others on the list in the catagory provided or many of the other thousands that appear on this site. If it's deleted, do I have any appeal process with a higher authority? What expertise does the deleter have to possess on the subject they are deleting? I have seen many many self serving musician articles on here with severely puffed up credentials....why aren't they deleted? Hamilton Styden 05:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1313 Mockingbird Lane[edit]

I deleted 1313 Mockingbird Lane because it didn't qualify as notable under the guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC in my opinion, and in the opinion of the editor who originally tagged it for speedy deletion. It also appeared, from what was written at the bottom of the page, that it was copied wholecloth from another source, which would make it a copyright violation. I did not delete it for lack of links, nor lack of references; the page would also have needed verifiable sources, but that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If there are other bands which you feel do not qualify as notable under the Wikipedia criteria, I would strongly encourage you to edit them and put {{db-band}} at the very top. This will nominate those pages for speedy deletion. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more on this - only Wikipedia:Administrators can delete articles, and none of us do it for fun ;). Administrators are volunteers (like pretty much everyone around here) given a few extra capabilities (like deleting articles) following an election process (see WP:RFA if you're interested in this sort of stuff). People elected as administrators are trusted to know and follow Wikipedia's policies, specifically around deleting articles and blocking users (which means preventing users from making any changes at all to Wikipedia for some period of time). There is a policy for undeleting articles as well, see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If you've read WP:MUSIC and feel this band meets the guideline, please feel free to list it on the deletion review page. Your opinion as a contributor counts for just as much as any other contributor, including any admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick's absolutely right (and has a far better wikibedside manner than I). If you feel 1313 Mockingbird Lane qualifies under WP:MUSIC, please do list it at WP:DRV. And he's also right about admins being regular editors with a few more buttons at the top of the page. As is often said around here, admins are just editors with a mop and a bucket. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 18:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond specifically to the above, 1st, I saved the document as I assumed correctly that it was going to be speedily deleted without a trace to be seen anywhere. After all that work, why wouldn't I save it? This is my document written 100% by me. It was saved to word and then copied by myself, but I am the composer and writer of that text completely.

Now to address the issues concerning notability under the guidlines laid out at WP:Music. While I'm sure you understand the guidlines well, a musical group only has to have one of the listed qualifications below to qualify for listing and yet this band has qualifications in at least each of the catagories below and more.

Wikipedia states that to to qualify a group:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works....and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city."

In my opinion my article mentioned sources and qualifications listed below, but was still deleted for reasons of non notability.

The group was signed to no less than four credible indie labels one of which is Sundazed which is a very prominent indie label that put out dozens and dozens of releases by such groups as The Monkees,Nancy Sinatra, The Trashmen, Shadows of Night etc.

As far as resources go, the Wikipedia site explains that the "All Music Guide" is an excellent source. The band appears on that guide.

I also quoted as a source Timothy Gassen's UK book "The Knights Of Fuzz" published in three editions already by Borderline Books ISBN# 1-899855-02-5. The group was featured and listed in the Hot 100 groups along with many of the groups already listed in the genre on Wikipedia. Not only has this book been published in three editions, it is very collectible and desired and the old editions sell on the market for well more than the published price. This isn't a veriable source?

The drummer of the group 1313 was formerly Link Wray's( A Notable guitarist with a page on Wikipedia) drummer in 1985 and played on the LP Live In '85(Ace records, UK). There currently is a band called Dieselhed listed on Wikipedia who has links to their band from Link Wray and also have links to individual musician pages based on this affiliation. To the best of my knowledge, they have not played on any recorded works with this artists, yet still appear to be qualified and have not been deleted. Additionally, they have appeared to place deliberately false information about being Link Wray's regular backing band when touring records clearly show that he had no regular backing band.

I have plenty of positive press from on this group 1313 local(New York) and internationally which are not vanity articles and refer to the groups notablity in the genre of garage rock.

Again, I feel that my article mentioned or cited these issues and am again finding myself not understanding based on the list of other grous less notable on the garage rock list.

Any further clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Hamilton Styden 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam]]"

Hamilton Styden 18:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Paste: Is cut and paste not allowed for any puposes even if you are the writer? How about in communications? Thanks.

Hamilton Styden 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the group existed is not in dispute, but verifiability and notability are two different creatures. Whether the group is more or less notable than other bands which have not been deleted isn't really an issue either; as I've said, if you think there are non-notable groups on Wikipedia, you can tag them for deletion and they will be reviewed.

Timothy Gassen's book is no longer in print, and the book isn't about them; besides, as I've said, verifying the band exists isn't the issue. Dieselhed relies on a lot more than associations with Link Wray to show their notability. If you've found errors in that article, I invite you to correct them. If the 1313 Mockingbird Lane drummer played with Link Wray, as the WP:MUSIC criteria suggest, there should be a redirect from the drummer's name to the Link Wray article. You say they have been featured in local and international news but the article didn't mention these appearances. What media references are you referring to? JDoorj a m Talk 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I only received a response to a few of my points. Timothy Gassens's book is still in print on CD rom and is available @http://www.purple-cactus.tv/garage-nation/knightsoffuzz.html.

Your expanation that the book is not about the group applies to all the groups in the book,many of which are already listed on Wikipedia. That's why it's a guide.It seems that you almost have a personal issue with this book or its validity as a verifiable guide to this type of music. You mention that the book is out of print,which isn't accurate. Even if that were an accurate statement, does that mean that out of print records and cd's can't be listed in a discography because they are unverifiable?? Is there a section of policy that dictates that out of print books cannot be used as veriable sources?

That would be akin to saying that because Billboard magazine chart listings are not about The Beatles ,therefore The Beatles page shouldn't reference Billboard as a veriable source.

You neglected to address the issue that the group was listed in the "all music guide" which is a Wikipedia recommended resource.

Here are a few samples of published articles in Newspapers I found in a file which are only a few I have off hand.:

Friday December, 29 1989 Schenectady Gazette;

Top Local Recordings OF 1989: 1313 Mockingbird Lane The Secong Coming Of.

Metroland Magazine, articles and reviews Oct.5 -11 1989,Sept21-27, 1989, Sept 28th -October 4th 1989,December 21-27 1989

I could provide many more if needed,but again I don't think this is what is required by the definitions as I am reading them.

Again, I would like to stress that the band only needed to be signed to a recognizable indie label to be included under the Wikipedia guidlines, so why are we going around on this?

I readily admit that my article was pretty deficient missing links regarding the Link Wray connection etc, but to say overall that the band is not notable under the Wikipedia guidlines is simply not the case here.

While I agree after thoroughly reading their Wikipedia page that Dieselhed didn't simply rely on the Link Wray connection,they are connected to that article and have placed false information on it which was termed vandalism when removed previously. Additionally, there is information on the Dieselhed page which discusses the firing of a band member without really quoting a source on where that information came from. What's to verify that information and its accuracy? That is the type of pointed information that seems way overly personal and another example of "he said she said" gossip.

I understand that there is an interest to delete "non notable" bands, but as I have mentioned previously, this band (1313) qualifies under the current definitions in more than one catagory.

This is not a case of whether the band exists, but specifically adhering to the current Wikipedia requirements which I have addressed previously.

Thanks,

205.188.116.5 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam"

((helpme))

I suspect you mean {{helpme}} (open/close brace vs. paren), but if you're really looking for a response from JDoorjam you've already put the question on the talk page (which is the appropriate path for communicating with this user). I'm not making any judgement about the issue, but it seems like you might want to take it to a wider forum via Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I moved your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review to the proper place (under today's date), and deleted the discussion from above that was copied (added a link to this discussion - there's no need to duplicate it). I'll let user:JDoorjam know it's listed there as well (and, yes, talk page is the right place). For the time being, the best approach is to wait a bit and see how the discussion goes at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Hi again. Sorry for the slow response, I was out of town for a couple of days. I've created User:Hamilton Styden/1313 Mockingbird Lane with the content from when the article was deleted. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy says the deletion review discussion should be closed after 5 days if a majority, and at least 3, say to restore the article, or the discussion should be closed after 10 days (restore with any majority and keep deleted otherwise). It hasn't been 10 days yet, but the current split is 2-1 (counting you as the one). I'm not sure if there are folks who watch the trailing edge of deletion review discussions or not. You might try to solicit more discussion, perhaps at Portal_talk:Music or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If the consensus is to keep it deleted, you can renominate for undeletion if you substantially change the copy in your userspace (more references, etc.) or have other additional information not brought into the current discussion. Good luck! -- Rick Block (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This has been closed as "kept deleted." I was going to come and offer to move into your user space, but someone beat me to it. Damn those crazy kids. Anyway, if/when you think that the article is up to scratch, you can drop a not on my talk page if you want a second opinion. - brenneman ^{L} 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you're working on the article in your userspace, which I'm hoping means this experience hasn't totally turned you off to contributing to the project. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the current version of the article at User:Hamilton Styden/1313 Mockingbird Lane and it looks quite good to me. The main point is to make sure the band obviously meets one or more of the bullets at WP:MUSIC for notability - the best bet looks to be bullet #5 (featured in multiple non-trivial published works). None of the other bullets strictly apply (right?). You might want to get JDoorjam's opinion on this as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took so long to get back to you, Hamilton. My only suggestion for the article would be that, after the first paragraph, you put in a section title or two two break up that initial block of text. But I think it's article-worthy. I'm glad you had the patience to prove me wrong on this. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with the headings you suggested on my talk page. If you have any good photos of the band, especially if you took them or know who did and can ask that they allow its free use, the page could probably use one or two of those as well. To put the page back, simply click the "Move" tab on the top of the sub-page you've created, and move it to 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Let me know if I can be of help with that process. JDoorj a m Talk 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace version[edit]

(My browser is slow, so I make arbitrary ection breaks.) I've looked at the re-done article and I'd say that it's ready for prime-time. I'd like to see the "external links" converted into WP:FOOTNOTES but that's just because I'm a pain in the bum. Good job, mate!
brenneman ^{L} 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos for 1313 Mockingbird Lane[edit]

Hey Hamilton, while it's preferred that the images be free-use, they don't need to be. Using the template that says they're promotional material is fine, it just means that the images can only be used in the article space. So, for instance, you couldn't put a fair-use photo on your user page. But it won't get deleted. The rule of thumb is that free-use images are better than fair-use images, but that fair-use is better than nothing. As for a photo credit, usually that would go on the page for the image rather than the article page. Let me know when you get the photos uploaded! JDoorj a m Talk 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diverging[edit]

I took a liberty with your user page and redirected it to your talk. If and when you'd like a spiffy userpage with spinning gifs of your face or something, I'm happy to help. If you actually wanted you signature to be red, I'll alsp happily put that back, too.
brenneman ^{L} 09:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:1313wiki.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1313wiki.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1313promo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1313promo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1313promo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1313promo.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. 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. MER-C 09:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]