User talk:Wwwhatsup/Archive 6

• Archived Nov 5 2013 Wwwhatsup (talk)

Happy New Year 2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Wwwhatsup: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Punkcast for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Punkcast is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Nomination of Better Badges for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Better Badges is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Badges (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioNovi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MarioNovi, While any AfD request must stand on its intrinsic merits, I do note that your account seems to be have singularly created for the purpose of attacking articles related to Joly MacFie, and thus raises questions of motive. The fact that the notices above are unsigned, and that there are extra spaces in the included article names raises further suspicions, although that could just be a template glitch. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Deletion notice errors

Yeah, looks like a template error - the editor seems to have added an extra space before the article name. The AFD log will likely fix it there but not here on your talk page. In this case it looks like an extra space either side of the article title was included when the template was posted. Common mistake. I fixed both for you. Automatic ones (like ones done with Twinkle) usually don't have the same issues. Stalwart111 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If I was a less experienced editor I might have been thrown by it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, yes. Stalwart111 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:EW - Possibly not... Or it could just be a matter of these things coming in threes. Maybe an RFC to determine WP:CONSENSUS would help. That way you have a clear direction when protection ends. But I understand the query and will keep my ear to the ground. Cheers, Stalwart111 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggested the protecting admin take a look at some of the subsequent comments. He has since given a quite comprehensive further explanation. So perhaps the best way forward would be to add an {{rfc}} to the talk page with your own explanation so that a consensus can develop for edits post-protection. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:BLP - understand the hesitation given the suggestions made by the other editor. I have absolutely no involvement in (or real understanding of) the subjects in question. If you like, I would be happy to create such an article. There would be no other option than for it to be well-sourced, neutral and policy-compliant because I would be creating it "blind". I would have to do the research from scratch and (knowing nothing of the subject) would only include that which I could find in sources. But I won't do so without further discussion/agreement. Stalwart111 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories

Wow! Laboratory tour!

On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I couldn't make it. I'd like to do it some time, and shoot some video. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to plan visits just a bit in advance but yes, the offer of a tour is kind of an open invitation and you would be welcome to do video here. I will be out of the country for a month starting this weekend but I was planning to do another tour sometime before May. Thanks for your interest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized who you are. I did not know you did a punk broadcast. I just looked at your uploads on Commons - thanks for contributing pictures of artists. Too often there are no free pictures available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I could do more, if I had the time! Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Val Haller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lords Of The New Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Well, we can only hope. I am optimistic but that optimism has been waxing and waning with each additional edit. Rather than wiki-hound I have left a final note at ANI and have moved on. The tags were the last outstanding issue. Hopefully the remaining AFD will close soon, the ANI thread will be closed (or more likely archived without closing) and we can move on. Only question then is about the need for one new BLP. But we can leave that for a few days. Stalwart111 07:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too. As for the blp I kind of leave it up to others on that. I was interested to remark the cultural positions of those two projects, but not so much the man. However there is a common thread of promoting bottom up DIY P2P promotion, with a third unmentioned angle in Internet activism. As far as Better Badges goes, I don't know if this would stand as a source but it does describe the founding. The Guardian [1] and the Rough Trade book don't even spell the name right, hardly reliable!, but a nice quote. It's possible a more detail-oriented writer may decide to pick the topic up at some point giving a more authoritative secondary source. What I was very happy to see in the Punk Aesthetics book was that they'd managed to dig up a pic of the Roundhouse badge stall, something I've never been able to do. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. I am sorry it was gone to this, but Stalwart suggested it and I wasn't going to but maybe it will make things clearer for us, MarioNovi (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of external site URLs as category name for promotion

I need your help here. I have seen a number of articles with edits from IPs to change reference names to an external website(chartarchive.org) seemingly to raise page ranking.

Plase see a diff here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoann_Lemoine&diff=532337916&oldid=532337749

And I searched in wikipedia for the term chartarchive.org and found thousands of pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=chartarchive.org&title=Special%3ASearch

I dont exactly know if it's allowed but felt it should not be and put a thread in the administrators notice board and it seems nobody commented on it and you archived or deleted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=533346859&oldid=533346674

Now the question remains. Is it allowed in wikipedia to use private website urls in the reference category names? Thank you. Anu Raj (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1) ChartArchive is a recognized database of chart positions, and as such is a reliable source, and to expected to be referenced many times. The edit in question was quite justified as before it just referred to an earlier non-existent ref. 2) I never archived or deleted anything from WP:ANI I merely commented on an entirely different matter. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay it didn't look a reliable source to me. Thank you very much for your response. You must have removed it accidentally as you can see in the diff. Thanks anyway. nice day! Anu Raj (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, so I did, I didn't notice it lower down. I think there was an edit conflict as I was posting. My apologies. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello I wanted to thank you for realizing I had no vengeance against you and defending me from other people who wanted to assume otherwise. Better Badges seems to have got a lot of good attention for the AFD as you stated so that worked out. Hope we can get along from now. MarioNovi (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Also it is good that you put those things on the talk page. You did the correct thing I believe now we can all move forwards, MarioNovi (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's a learning process for all of us. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I learned in that case maybe COI is better than AFD? It just looked suspicious to me hope you understand.We both learn something but someone else didn't. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it depends, if notability is really an issue, then an AfD is appropriate, regardless of authorship. If not, then it's a question of whether the COI is negatively affecting the article, in terms of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS etc. As far as OR goes there are some paradoxes in the sourcing policy, say if a primary source gets interviewed by someone else, that info may be acceptable as a secondary source, and so on. But, especially as one is gaining experience, what one should really do is first attempt to improve articles, rather than knock them down. If in that process people mess with you, only then may you have to revert to policy. It was the fact that you were doing things the other way round that raised suspicions, especially as your contribs appeared WP:POINTY aimed at me. One of the benefits of editing with a user name over an IP is to avoid that kind of thing. Lastly I think you have to take WP:AGF to heart, it works both ways. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes maybe you are right we both had to AGF more! I will think about it alot. I met 50% nice people here and 50% people who just want to cause problems. I was not thinking of doing COI until Stalwart remove the COI tags and called them "pointy". I felt offended by this. Quite a mess! Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In the earliest days or the Internet, the Robustness principle aka Postel's Law was established. Although originally aimed at the most basic levels of networking, it applies well to the higher levels. Simply stated: "Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept" Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should both do it more. Also I was looking at Manitoba, I don't care about this guy but if they try to put it back again maybe you can put it as "this guys says that he sued him" instead of stating as fact? But looks like all those people stopped anyway. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that, if you look my quick clean up of that article, I'd say it's a fair indicator of the sort of easy improvements one can make to this kind of thing. Chop unnecessary or repeated detail, make it more neutral, factual, and chronological. Find more refs. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Arlene's Grocery

Hi, do you think it is a good idea to put a message on that user's talk page? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to address the issue on the article talk page. Especially the assertion that one of the refs is no good. You can then, optionally invite the IP to comment there. Then if some consensus is achieved, reinsert the section. But there's two us who think it's overblown, so it might have to be trimmed down to something like its earlier minimal form. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The original form was one the IP removed because source disappeared online. When I found a new source I just put it what it said. Is there a way I can put up full text somewhere? Had to go to the library. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as we have discussed before, print sources are just as valid as online ones. However, my own practice has been, if to hand, to upload them to archive.org. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neil Oram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Gibbs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Neil Oram

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, by the way! Stalwart111 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Had a quick look as requested. My biggest concern would be with para 1 - Family - which is based on the source, "Personal interview with Neil Oram, 2013". Does the author mean an interview he/she conducted with the subject or an interview with a magazine or newspaper that isn't linked? Because the latter would be a primary source but maybe okay, whereas the former would almost certain be considered original research. "Interview with Neil Oram 2013" appears four more times in the reflist and is used to verify a substantive portion of the article. WP does not publish original research, original interviews, personal experiences or private discussions as reliable sources. That bit might need some work. Stalwart111 03:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll see that I address this on the talk page, somewhat. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Heartworm Press for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heartworm Press is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartworm Press until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ADV

Hello. I mention on Talk:Punkcast but you don't really respond. I am concerned that you did alot of changes on wikipedia that violate WP:ADV in particular "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". Would you like to discuss it? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello it has been almost two months and you did not respond. You did not reply to my message at Talk:Punkcast where I said that your updates like [2] and [[3]] maybe violating WP:ADV where it says "It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". You say you think it does not violate it but I think for safety we should ask another experienced editor is not known yet. Do you believe so? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't respond further because I had already responded. Not a lot more to add. I documented some acts where I also edited/maintained articles. While I can add photos to commons I can't do the same with videos due to copyright considerations. If you want to go nuts about it I could shift the videos over to archive.org if they are not already there. Name them. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It still points to content under your brand name so I am not sure, maybe it is ok to do that, but it seems maybe it is not? I think you have put at least 50 links of this type. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As you know, Punkcast was/is not a commercial site. It was a volunteer effort to document the NY musical scene in a period when there was very little access otherwise to online video, preceding YouTube etc, and many of the subject acts while notable were shortlived, others that continued are shown in their early days, thus there is historic or other notable value. While it often was not prearranged that the bands would be recorded, the posting online was done with full co-operation. At the same time it was understood that acts retained full rights to their performances, thus it is not possible to further release them under a CC licence. On any individual article you can argue on its talk page that a certain video does not contribute valuable insight to the Wikipedia reader, and see if you can get consensus to delete. If the only reason to delete is the hosting site I would argue that's insufficient. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how to explain, you are still not talking about "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". Is it OK if I ask for third opinion or other neutral method? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that "should" is not an imperative. Neither is WP:BOLD. You are free to do whatever you think appropriate. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you I asked. Alot more examples like [4] [5] [6] [7], MarioNovi (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: The content could fall under any of the following policies: WP:ADV/WP:LINKSPAM/WP:SELFPROMOTION. Its also a bit concerning that these pages mention purchasing the videos on VCD (whether or not its at or near cost doesnt matter much). Im sure you had good intentions when linking them, and theres nothing wrong with having these videos and distributing them, they just might not be suitable for linkage on Wikipedia, and people could think there is an alterior motive where one doesnt necessarily exist if the policies are ignored. Which will likely end in an edit war. I would lean towards their removal personally. -- Nbound (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The VCD offer was in fact a temporary thing, cost rate, a legacy of the time when bandwidth was scarce. I should go through and methodically remove those offers from the site, something I've been meaning to do. I suggest, again, that each case be considered on its merits as to whether the actual content is of value to the wikipedia reader. Since most of them have been up for 10 years one would imagine that the de facto consensus is that they ARE valuable. If there is serious concern about the hosting. any video can be ported to archive.org. In some cases they already are. If an editor decides to delete one, and there is consensus, naturally they have to go. It's quite possible they have served their purpose and are no longer that valuable. In other cases it might be that the video gives insight into an act's early days and would not otherwise be discoverable. I think there's a wider issue of how one can personally provide documentation for any article unless that documentation is on commons - something often not feasible with video. I am sure this is not the first time the issue has come up. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The videos still mention the site they are from, which can be construed as trying to get traffic, and is against the policies mentioned above. Yes, I agree that it can sometimes be hard to document articles, but the encyclopedia has these policies for a reason. And even though there is no mal-intent on your behalf, it cant be guaranteed that the same applies in all cases. Im sure your site isnt the only one thats been added in this manner either. -- Nbound (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is not a crime :) Even the many punkcast framegrabs on commons mention the source, in fact there is some insistence on same. These links have stood the test of time. In some cases - TV on the Radio for instance, the original video links have long been edited out as a plethora of further information has accumulated. I suggest that the links should stand or fall on their intrinsic merit. But it's up to other editors to make that judgement. Some of the linked videos do not appear on YouTube, or if they do it is because other people have put them there, arguably copyvio.

If you read earlier in my talk, you'll see MarioNovi his/herself asking my advice how to publish some reliable documentation, and I suggest uploading it to archive.org. Would that not challenge the same principle if he/she then referenced? Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reason looks like "I suggest that the links should stand or fall on their intrinsic merit", but Wikipedia policy says "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked". So in this case even if they should be there they should not have been put there by you. If it was 1 or 2 that is ok but it is more like 100. Maybe you don't understand how wikipedia policy applies to you, similar to how you didn't understand that you should not create pages for your own companies. Do you think this is it? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have all my life disobeyed rules, but in this case this is not a rule, it's a guideline, just as is WP:BOLD. There is worthy content and non-worthy content. Sometimes it's down to notability, reliable secondary sources, sometimes it's down to consensus judgements over comprehension. This is not a court of law where all tainted evidence has to be thrown out.

And MarioNovi, if there are 100 edits, that is 100 out of 4000+ article edits You, MarioNovi, have only just over a 100 to your name. As I have said before, I think once you get more into creative contributing, you'll have a better understanding of the tradeoffs. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are acting in good faith but I don't think it is as you say, the Wikipedia's mission is not a list of links see WP:LINKFARM WP:NOTCATALOG as well as previous issues. The third opinion agrees with me but does not want more involvement so I will request others if it is ok, Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again I make my point, video documentation is a special case. Lots of video links are surely superfluous, but one or two, especially of historic nature are not. At the same time it is beyond expectation for musicians to grant commons status to their performances, so an EL is a natural place for same. MarioNovi, it is only via my earlier intercession that resolved wikihounding suspicions[8]. Considering the proportion of your Wikipedia contributions that have been dedicated to removing content with which I am associated. Given its ongoing nature, and the fact that the edits you have issue with are 7 years old, I'm not sure other editors may be too concerned about them. I'm quite happy to argue the principle. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not bring up my edit count, and do not bring up wikihounding the reason I found this pattern is that you gave me the links at Punkcast talk page. But I do not want to be involved. I am trying to help you avoid breaking policy further like you did creating Punkcast but you do not listen. I will ask for more advice but will try not to be involved. Sorry, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Concern over whether links like [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (these examples are only a small amount of total links like this), where the user who added the links is the owner of Punkcast (site that is linked to, also wikipedia article created by him, history of COI) but was not clear about it always, are a violation of WP:LINKFARM WP:NOTCATALOG WP:ADV WP:LINKSPAM WP:SELFPROMOTION. I am doing RFC but it said "A user-conduct RfC (RFC/U) is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I think that is true here but maybe RFCU is not needed. This message has to be neutral so I will not say more. Would like any input, sorry if it's the wrong place. I think user acts in good faith but does not understand policy. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Wwwhatsup is doing a fine job. he's limiting himself to 1 or 2 relevant ELs per article. The video content is ultimately hosted (legally) on youtube. There are no evident copyright issues at youtube, eg. see this [24] where he has worked out IPR with the content owners. IMHO there's no linkfarm, linkspam or self-promotion going on here. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTCATALOG don't apply here - no selling price, 1 link per page ?!! He's providing free rare and legal footage to niche interests which clearly enhances Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You my friend OTH clearly have COI issues with Punkcast and should be considering sitting this one out.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

AcorruptionfreeIndia, or anyone else, could you please explain how these links are enhancing the encyclopedia, in accordance with WP:EL. As far as I can tell, these Punkcast links are simply pages which host videos of random musical performances which would seem to fall under item #4 at WP:LINKFARM "Mere collections of photographs or media files". You have done nothing to dissuade any COI concerns either but for now I think most importantly, the merit of the links must be determined.

Also these links are not to Youtube, so I don't know what you're talking about there. --SubSeven (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I moved to [25] thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wwwhatsup. You have new messages at Talk:Hawthorn, Wiltshire.
Message added 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just made a start on Get Over It! (album);

it's available at User:Launchballer/Get Over It! (album). I don't know very much about it so if you could help, that'd be great.--Launchballer 07:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add. I have to say that I've seen plenty of good album articles get deleted for being non-notable, so I am not sure that a major effort is worth it, unless you can come up with some specific refs that support that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sex Customers?

I thought it was vandalism, that's why I changed it. Is there some other meaning behind it or am I just not reading it right? TJD2 (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the preceding para. The shop was called SEX, the musicians were customers. Only later did they become Sex Pistols. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Berlin external link

I am curious regarding this revert. It isn't immediately obvious why, for example, this has any relationship to the article subject and it should not be necessary for the reader to "do some research" - that is our role, not theirs. Having done the requisite research for that particular link, it seems that Berlin is on the staff or something similar. This then raises the question of why it is shown as an external link rather than referenced in the article. Linking to the "wrong" page, which is what has happened here, can certainly give the impression that someone is spamming even if, as in this case, they are not. Would it not be better to integrate this stuff into the article body?

I am aware that you and Stalwart111 have had problems with MarioNovi but I really don't know the history. They do, however, seem to have a point of sorts in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. You will find some discussion of this on Stalwart111's talk, and also the Jeff Berlin talk. In a series of edits MarioNovi removed everything except the single referenced fact in the article, including an extensive discography. Then posted a notability tag. Rather than revert I commented talk that there was little doubt about notability. Then, when MarioNovi then removed the ELs on the basis "can't see relevants" after having removed the relevant body passages, I did indeed revert, suggesting doing some research. In my opinion all of MarioNovi's edits on this article should be rolled back and replaced with a refimprove tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries, I've worked out what has gone on and why you simply reverted. I'm dealing with it at User_talk:Sitush#Hello. The general history of things involving you, Stalwart and MarioNovi is pretty convoluted. Are you aware of anyone suggesting mentorship to MarioNovi? Might it help? - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I did in fact myself try some mentoring, see further up on my talk, but with limited results. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm probably not the best person to step in - I'm a bit frustrated with aspects of this place at the moment - but I'll see if I can take things further. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at User_talk:Sitush#Hello. If MN agrees, would you be prepared to take a step back while we sort out the Jeff Berlin article? Obviously, if you spot MN doing something elsewhere that breaches this agreement then it would likely be voided. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I already tread carefully round MN. This won't be a problem, my revert was just a nudge. The article, as it stood, definitely needed improvement, in both style and content. I do think that if MN were to take the time and trouble to focus on making a well researched and rounded article, it would be beneficent for all concerned. It seems, apart from himself, and his playing, Berlin's influence on bass guitar design is worth exploring. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. I know as near as dammit nothing about music - I was born profoundly deaf - but one of the beauties of this place is that contributors do not need to be knowledgeable so long as they know how to research etc. Hopefully, we can count on you to pick up (sic) any howlers. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits thus far, some guidance on citation formats, or at least how to be more granular in the sourcing, might be advisable. A google book url alone doesn't quite cut it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this diff oversteps the mark. This is the very EL that was ultimately under discussion in the WP:EL Noticeboard. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It also predates (just) the arrangement that I made, so I'm not going to query it. If consensus is on your side then just revert, if you have not done so already. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Stalwart111 to deal with it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And so I have. Clearly disruptive and pointy given absolutely no consensus exists with regard to MN's "breach" accusation; quite the opposite actually. That EL has been there since 2007 and MN is clearly now either trawling through years of Wwwhatsup's contributions to undo them or is searching for a particular URL and unilaterally blacklisting it for entirely personal reasons. It's doesn't really matter which one, there's nothing collegial about editing like that. Stalwart111 02:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I have hopes, but on current evidence, and despite best efforts from fellow editors, MN doesn't seem able to understand that his/her passive/aggressive persecution of me as an editor goes beyond acceptable behavior. To the point where the actual issues are hardly relevant. I've no idea what the source of the fixation is, but good luck with resolving it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Reflinks might help with the barelink problem? Here we see an editor using it on an article MN created. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It works as a quick-and-dirty method (I use it for that purpose) but often the output needs to be tweaked if it is to produce a "proper" citation. Examples of problems include that the publisher is often shown as Google Books and citations of newspapers are given the {{cite web}} template when most people would use {{cite news}} or (better still) {{cite newspaper}}. Of course, the output can be tweaked afterwards or even in the reflinks or Wikipedia edit window prior to saving. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As of yet, not too impressed. Needs more work. The original article before MN arrived was more informative, and read better. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard nothing from Mario and will be chasing it up. However, the original article that you link to was bloody awful: no source = no mention, especially in a BLP. Mario went a bit far in cutting without checking whether the external links contained verification but ultimately was in the right. WP:BURDEN and all that. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The content was not "challenged", it was simply removed willy-nilly, thus WP:BURDEN was not necessarily applicable. The correct process would be to add a refimprove or similar tag. As far as discographies go, very few on Wikipedia have individually referenced items. Record releases are easily referenced, and are not normally challenged. Why should at least that not be re-instated? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I challenge it now. That things elsewhere are not sourced is completely irrelevant, sorry. There is absolutely no need to make the hole in the dyke any bigger than it already is. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

With this further example of forum shopping I trust, Sitush, that the nature of the problem behavior maybe becoming apparent. MN has singlemindedly been attacking my edits for 7 months now, and shows no signs of relenting. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast links

MN pointed me to this. I'd seen it before and I know that it is an out-of-process RfC. However, if we ignore the wikilawyering about that aspect, your argument does not look particularly strong and, in fact, you seem to be backpedalling a bit. Have you now removed the marketing aspects from the punkcast site? - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I went back and reread WP:ELNO #5, and also 2nd para of WP:ADV, so it didn't seem necessary. Just to be clear, this was not a backpedal, the disc service is no longer offered. The site is essentially an archive, unedited in the last few years. Editing all the pages would be a pain but I can add a notice to the front page to that effect. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MarioNovi (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

COI

You have acknowledged a COI, you are still incapable of complying with such fundamental policies as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EW and you show no inclination to consider editing in areas other than those where you clearly often have a vested interest. I suggest that you do try that because I have started drafting a ban proposal and really, really do not want to have it enforced. - Sitush (talk)

I understand your position, Sitush, but I think your assertion is unfounded. My edit history should stand for itself. I have a wide range of interests, but yes, music is central. I welcome new editors, help them along. I revert vandals. I clean stuff up. And occasionally create articles. I do my best to work positively. Most of my work is reffing and tidying up. Unlike, say, yourself, I am rarely involved in controversy. I am active in Wikimedia NYC, and actually host and document their meetups. I have been forced in recent times to pay attention to those specific articles of projects I was involved with solely in response to MN's campaign. I have assumed good faith as far as possible, but I now sense that the time has come for the harassment to stop. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Twink.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Twink.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redsky89 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Twink.jpg

Talkback. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)