User talk:Rhododendrites/2015b

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rhododendrites, for the period March 2015 - April 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Rhododendrites;

Just to let you know that I fully understand why you reverted my recent inclusion of 'red-inked' Declan Masterson in the article on bagpipers and, in a way, I don't like red-ink either.

The reason for including it that way was twofold: 1) make the article on pipers more complete and 2) encourage other editors to consider taking the initiative of creating the subject article, especially if they have access to more data than I do.

So, instead of the 'red-ink' entry approach, I could add a section on the article's talk page, to ask if other editors consider Declan Masterson notable enough to warrant an article. If consensus turns out negative, then this would be another reason for not creating one in the first pace: no point doing all the work if such an article is going to be tagged for speedy deletion for falling foul of the notability requirement.

What do you think?
Thank you for your feedback, at your convenience.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk) 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Thanks for the message. The two reasons you give are historically why redlinks are created, but in particular why they're created within articles. Words/terms/phrases/names in an article are based on reliable sources so there's nothing like "notability" for their inclusion and thus to turn them into links. With lists, however, each item has to independently merit inclusion so the standard for most is for each to have a Wikipedia article. Sometimes there are lists that can be exhaustive like a discography, list of provinces of Canada, list of mountains in Africa, list of elements, etc. but otherwise each should be notable. Adding it to the talk page may work, but I don't know if list of bagpipers gets enough traffic such that I would expect much of a response to such a question there.

What I would recommend would be to create Draft:Declan Masterson. The draft namespace is where you can develop an article before moving it to the main article space. You might also want to check out Articles for Creation, a process whereby you can submit a Draft to a group of experienced editors who can provide feedback. I'd also be happy to take a look. There's no requirement you do any of this -- you can always just create the article, but creating a Draft is a good way to avoid a quick deletion in case you make a mistake. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Dear Rhododendrites;
Thank you very much for your prompt reply, and for taking the time to make it so informative too; I have learnt a lot, thanks to your cogent explanations, and I really appreciate it. The few articles I have created so far were mostly of albums from notable musicians, so these were almost no-brainers () to develop by first drafting them in one of my sandboxes ear-marked for that very purpose, and proved very enjoyable to do.

However, you have guided me in a most helpful way to try and take a different approach and I'll certainly look again at Articles for Creation and proceed via the draft process, as you so kindly suggested.
Very many thanks once more for your most helpful assistance so far; I will contact you again once I've made some progress with drafting the Masterson article, which I will definitely initiate now, simply for the benefit of learning by applying your recommended approach.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for a change to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (music). You have discussed similar issues on the article's talk page and would appreciate your input. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Do all of these guidelines imply GNG or are they stand-alone?. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for pointing that out - I misspelled the name (it's Allana Beltran, not Aliana). I removed the misspelled entry and included the correct spelling with a link to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iynasrah (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iynasrah: Excellent. Thanks -- and thanks for participating in this year's event! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

hi Rhododendrite, for ArtAndFeminism2015 I made this page to try to review the articles about African visual artists Wikipedia:Meetup/Lugano/ArtandFeminism2015/Africa. It shows some of the existing articles (artists and curators) and the missing ones. According to basically all publications the most well-known and cited African female artist is Sokari Douglas Camp (she has an article ok, but it would be fantastic to develop it further and – even if she lives in the UK – she is a symbol of female African artists with a strong artistic production and a very large number of acknowledgments). there are some very very important artists but their articles are really not sufficiently strong: the most visibile weaknesses are in the articles of Jane Alexander (artist) and Candice Breitz. A lot of other artists also if they are well documented (in major publications of contemporary African artists) do not have an article. I was hesitating to make stubs: would it make sense? I'm reporting it because i see you are checking the contributions and i think for a future initiative it would be important to highlight female protagonists of Africa too (who – in the list of underrepresented content on wikipedia – they sum up a lot of different issues). thanks for your work, --Iopensa (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iopensa: Thanks for the message and for trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of African women artists. To clarify something, though, I haven't really been checking contributions in the sense of evaluating. I looked at a few, but what you likely saw was me adding a template to talk pages (and possibly a couple other talk page adjustments). But I did that for several hundred articles yesterday.

I do feel like your question is one I can answer, though. The key guidelines for whether a person should have an article on Wikipedia are WP:GNG (which applies to any article), WP:BIO (applies to any person), and/or WP:CREATIVE (for artists). If a person satisfies any one of those, they are considered "notable". It really just boils down to reliable sources, though. I would say "yes", you should create stubs, as long as you can include at least 2-3 good references in each one. Unreferenced stubs are frequently deleted, especially if it's about a living person (Wikipedia has stricter rules for biographies of living persons).

If you create a stub or two and let me know, I'd be happy to provide some feedback on it/them. You might also consider making the stubs in the Draft space. It's like a testing ground to work on articles on Wikipedia before they actually become articles. Using a name from your list as an example, instead of creating Ato Malinda, you would create Draft:Ato Malinda. It's rare that drafts are deleted, so a good place to experiment and develop work. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or if there's something I can do to help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, please allow me to create this page as I am intend to work on it. I found it notable enough to be present on Wikipedia and hence requesting you to do so. Please allow me to create the page and once it is being made then please make the desired changes that you want to do on it. You are an expert and definitely I need your help in the creation and stability of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.77.212 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that is an article which was deleted by deletion discussion (AfD), then recreated and deleted many times. Many of its contributors were found to be sock puppets, too. Those aren't usually signs something should be created yet again. But the decision is not up to me, anyway. You would have to use deletion review. You could also contact one of the administrators who deleted the page (see the list of "_____ (talk | contribs) deleted page Nitesh Estates Limited..."). I respect your dedication, but I do not think that it is likely. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, thank you for your response. I am in the contact with other admins also who deleted the page. Also, I have made an un deletion request of this page [[1]]. Now please tell me what else I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.77.212 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not something I can be of much help with. The others you've contacted speak with more authority on the matter than I do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Most sincerely, I have tried to take your advice here. Don't know what else to do to satisfy my opponents there, one of whom is asking me to remove what I did to try to follow your advice. I just don't seem to get it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I'm afraid my edit summary may have given the wrong idea. I was responding to the edit war, which looked to be based on the cn tag. My revert was primarily to say that cn is not a good basis for an edit war as it's clearly not a valid tag. I could tell as much without digging deeper. Once I looked at the arguments, however, it looks to me like the consensus is in favor of removing the tags. That's not the say the discussion is closed by any means, but that the tags should not be there unless you (and/or others) can convince people otherwise. Sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So if the text in the book does not contain what is alleged in the article, and cannot even be interpreted so, nothing can be done about that? Leaves a lot of room for errors and for falsifications of source cites all over Wikipedia, doesn't it? Or is it only in that case that we should not investigate the source, for reasons which I do not understand? So far it seems I've done everything wrong, in every single detail. Help! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: The article text which seems to be the most controversial is this: Most modern biographers agree that she was a lesbian, and her affairs with women were noted during her lifetime. The statement cites this source which states "What Christina a lesbian? The record is complex, but the consensus of modern biographers favors that view." I do not have access to beyond the Google Books search, but as the significant claim in that sentence is clearly verified, I don't see a particular reason to challenge the second half of the sentence. Are you saying that you have access to the entire source and the latter half of the sentence is not verified therein? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the people who cited the source either have that access or should have it, and could/should let us verify text in the source book to substantiate the definitive allegation that Christina had "affairs" with women which were noted in her lifetime. I'm also saying that I knowledgeably suspect no such text in fact exists (see closing below) or it would have been clearly accounted for by now. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to apologize. I'm also saying that as long as that text is not accounted for, none of us are doing our jobs appropriately; that it is my understanding sources when questioned are supposed to be fully revealed; that the editors who do not wish to fully account for the source text are being protected and supported in not having to bother to do so; that I have been given an extremely demeaning, depressing and alienating run-around with this particular item; and, most importantly, given my extensive studies of Christina and her family since 1964 and until today, I have never heard of such a thing as it having been confirmed by anyone ever that she had "affairs" with women that were known in her lifetime. Thank you for asking! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: WP:SOURCEACCESS is not required. This is a large reason of why editors' misrepresentation of sources is considered such an egregious offense -- because there's an underlying assumption of good faith that if one person has a book which seems reliable and says it verifies a fact, it's up to other editors to find the source and show otherwise (generally speaking -- there are exceptions to everything).

However, I can understand your frustration. As it happens, if you google "homosexuality and civilization pdf" a fulltext version is the top hit (it was for me anyway). I took a look myself just now. I won't bother quoting since I'm sure you'll want to see for yourself, but pages 358-359 do look to support the statement (I'd just link to it, but it doesn't seem like the sort of external link appropriate for Wikipedia). It's possible the wording needs to be tweaked, I don't know, but it's certainly not unsupported. In particular I'm looking at "...introduced her to the English ambassador ... as her 'bedfellow'"; "...wrote home that she had 'hidden away the beautiful bba Sparre in her bed and associated with her in a special way'"; "A german observer writing about the queen's sexual inclinations...". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaving this message here for lack of a more obvious venue. Pinging those involved in the most recent Heaven Sent Gaming MfD based on the Smile Lee SPI: @Grayfell, Bonadea, Ferret, Salvidrim!, Sergecross73, and FreeRangeFrog:

I noticed a few months ago that these accounts became active on Wikidata, creating various entries for HSG, its employees, its comics, even its comic book characters. I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikidata, and when I asked about it in IRC, I was told it was a valid use of Wikidata as long as there were pages to point to (the drafts count). The comic books, etc. might still be ok since they have also added them to other databases which Wikidata draws from. I was thinking those that rely on drafts should probably be deleted, but I see that they've also created other pages on Wikimedia projects the data items can point to: nv:Yáʼąąsh_Yeiyíʼaah_Jooł, nv:Hastiin_Mario_Loocero, nv:Asdzání Ysabel Loocero, ja:ヘヴン・セント・ゲーミング, wikinews:Wikinews interviews Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz of Heaven Sent Gaming (created by another SPA who wasn't part of the SPI, User:Gownirony), Commons categories full of pictures of themselves at commons:Category:Heaven Sent Gaming, commons:Category:Mario J. Lucero, commons:Category:Isabel Ruiz, and who knows what else.

I'm leaving a message here as some of you may be more active than I on these other projects -- enough to know which rules relating to promotion and sock puppetry apply and what, if any, the best course of action would be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The nvwiki and jawiki articles might warrant deletion if their notability policies are analoguous to ours, but you'd have to find a bilingual user to process the nomination, and frankly, the expected standard are often less strict than enwiki's. The WikiNews article is perfectly fine from what I can see (and in fact, particularly informative). The Commons uploads are also perfect (since permission was given through OTRS). The fact the user behind it was socking (and potentially COI AFAIAC) doesn't mean the content should all be trashed without further thought... to be honest, I'm not even 100% convinced that we shouldn't have an article on Heaven Sent Gaming, regardless of the problematic socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am only really active on enwiki and my watch page followed the article as it was deleted, undeleted, moved, etc. I've got my own personal opinions on the SPAs/SOCKs and their efforts here and what they "were after", that may not be really relevant.... @Mike V: may be able to offer some more insight on the SPI as I believe it was an cross-wiki effort that did not initially begin on enwiki. In short, other wikis have had to deal with this as well, but I'm not sure where the SFI initially began. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Ferret, I don't really have any experience anywhere beyond the English Wikipedia. All I can really testify is that I really didn't think anything related to HSG was really even approaching the GNG level needed for an article on the English site. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Side note: It may be worth noting that the SOCKs were aware that the interview was "forthcoming" before it occurred. It was mentioned in the Draft space by the XuiBuiLin sock before it was completed. While not exactly grounds for it to be deleted or anything, I'd suggest that the interview creator might be worth checking. 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My only relevant experience is with Simple English Wikipedia. I didn't think to check until now, but it looks like there has been similar activity there. Heaven Sent Gaming was deleted and recreated a couple of times,[2] and the usual suspects have all been blocked.

Also of note, the most recent edit to the Japanese article was by an IP (188.226.155.106) that was blocked on en.wiki per Wikipedia:Open proxies. I guess that's nothing we didn't already know, but it's kind of interesting. I feel like the Japanese Wikipedia editors would want to know about all this, but my Japanese isn't good enough to tell them. Perhaps we could post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan or a similar page? I didn't find a similar project for Navajo. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat pretty much - I know my way around Wikidata to a certain extent, and I can function minimally in the Spanish and German projects. But that's it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm hoping Mike V will be able to provide some insight as to the interwiki collaboration, but other than that I guess there's not much to do unless we can talk to someone at those Wikipedias -- and that assumes other Wikipedias care about such things to the same extent. The pervasiveness of the promotion here just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why my addition to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_encyclopedias was deleted. The page purports to list internet encyclopedias. My entry was for one such encyclopedia. Like the others listed, it is comprehensive, scholarly, non-commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Stang (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@David Stang: The list of encyclopedias matter is a pretty straightforward one: it's not a list of every internet encyclopedia, but a list of notable ones (which means, more or less, that they all have a Wikipedia article). Because of the things I'm about to list, it was evident the ZipcodeZoo article was going to be deleted.

The bigger issue is that you created a page about your own project (see WP:COI and WP:PROMO), which had previously been deleted by deletion discussion, functioned only to promote the site, and violated copyright by copy/pasting from the website. Any one of those last few is cause for "speedy deletion". Also, as page creator, the deletion notice on the page specifically says that the you should not be removing the deletion tags.

On a more positive/productive note, the key to creating a Wikipedia page is to demonstrate the subject is notable. That means citing multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. What I would recommend is to move the article to Draft:ZipcodeZoo. The "Draft" space functions as a sandbox/workshop to develop an article and even solicit feedback before it's moved into the main space and thus held to the typical standards other articles are. Nobody will delete it in the Draft space (though copyright still applies). If you would like me to move it there for you, I'd be happy to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Do you think tagging articles like this is helpful? Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: The tags look to apply to the article, right? Is your problem with the use/existence of those templates at all? Or because the article is short? Or something else I should infer from your rhetorical question? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My question is this: how useful and efficient is your tagging? How many tags are removed due to tasks being completed compared to how many tags you've added? I'm guessing it's neither useful nor efficient. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about the ratio between tasks completed by me and templates added by me? Or tasks completed by anyone in response to templates I add?

If the first, even a quick glance through my edit history will show that adding templates accounts for a really, really small portion, and that I've e.g. wikilinked/deorphaned far more articles than I've added those tags to.

I don't find the second question to have merit. It is not the nature of a wiki[pedia] to assume/judge for which articles and which issues people will respond on a timetable you deem acceptable such that addition of a template would be justified.

It seems like your problem might be with maintenance templates in general -- or perhaps those which concern matters less important than e.g. NPOV, unsourced, COI, notability, etc.? If that's the case, your quarrel is not with me, but with the templates and/or MOS and/or AWB, which by default adds these templates where appropriate while executing whatever other tasks it's executing (the edit you link to above, for example, was during a run in which I was primarily looking for "as of" statements to replace with Template:As of and spelling errors).

Sometimes the issues are addressed within minutes; sometimes years go by and there the templates remain. Personally, I really like them. As maintenance templates. In other words I think stylistic issues are a perfectly good use of them (and, of course, what they're intended for as maintenance templates rather than advisories). That they're so visible just makes it clear what should be (or could be) done and makes it easy to find something to fix when someone wants to find something to fix. I would also argue, based on what one of my students said a few years ago during a copyediting assignment, that removing a template provides a sense of reward and a sometimes low-barred accomplishment, like one of those games with a million little achievements to get. Meh. Either way, yes, I think it's useful and efficient. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Is there a way for you to generate stats (based on your AWB usage) that would provide some specific answers to my questions? I see that you are tagging x number of articles, but how many are you removing tags from? In any case, using automation bias as an example, you (via AWB) added maintenance tags automatically based on its orphan status. However, if you had manually reviewed the stub, you would have noticed a list article in the see also section waiting for the link to be added. One wonders, therefore, how many articles have maintenance tags added to them unnecessarily, kicking the can down the road for other editors to fix, when the so-called "problem" can be fixed right then and now. I know from direct experience that unnecessary maintenance tags litter our articles for years on end when they could have been prevented simply by an editor taking the time to fix the problem that they observe. Proper use of such tagging would be to engage in WP:BEFORE, not to rely on automated tagging because it meets a certain criteria determined by the automated tools (whatlinkshere, for example). In other words, the burden should be on the editor adding tags. If you can't fix the problem, then yes, the tag should be added. Instead we see editors adding tags because the tools do it for them. I find this mostly unacceptable as an editor. As for your gamification of learning and WP:MMORPG argument, I think such things have their place, but there is also serious criticism of such methods, and I don't think activating the brain's reward system to create behavioral addiction is an ethical endeavor. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are tagging x number of articles, but how many are you removing tags from Don't know. You seem to be of the impression, again, that there is no value in adding tags and only in removing them. I don't agree. Even if someone were to create an account and dedicate 100% of their edits to tagging with AWB, there is value in that. If you would like to analyze my edits, knock yourself out, but I don't have any motivation to do so.

One wonders, therefore, how many articles have maintenance tags added to them unnecessarily, kicking the can down the road for other editors to fix, when the so-called "problem" can be fixed right then and now. "Kicking the can down the road" is not an appropriate description. It's stigmergy. There are many ways pages are improved. Sometimes people edit directly, and sometimes the point of an editing session is to quickly provide small fixes, spelling errors, repairing templates, and adding tags. In such a scenario it is not the case that it would be just as easy to fix what the tag asserts -- again, it's not the point. The point, at that moment, is to add tags to articles where they are appropriate such that anybody else can notice the issue and fix it. Again, you may see more value in the fixing, but you certainly would not have added that incoming link if I had not tagged it (though you also removed the underlinked tag which still applies, not that it's a big deal). A lot of quick edits fixing small problems and drawing attention to issues is not necessarily worse (or better!) than a smaller number of targeted fixes. I'm not trying to take credit for anything or make using AWB out to be some incredible task -- these various processes are just how Wikipedia works.

I tend to resent people whose edits are nearly all automated, too, but for a different cynicism. AWB is easy whereas some other kinds of editing are harder, but instead of thinking a lot of easy edits are by definition less valuable than a few harder edits, the issue I have is when I get the sense someone is making a ton of semi-automated edits just for edit count. This too is not a valid complaint, though, because AWB does help (and AGF and all that), and anybody making a decision that matters knows edit count doesn't actually mean much. Is that what you're accusing me of doing?

WP:BEFORE is about AfD. Did you mean to link something else?

the burden should be on the editor adding tags. If you can't fix the problem, then yes, the tag should be added - Your criteria is narrower than the various guidelines'. If you bring it up on a Village Pump, I'll participate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems there's a bit more going on here than you've told me about. What's this? Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"than you've told me about"? As though you are owed explanations? That's a watchlist of dissertation-related topics that don't fit into one of the other dissertation-related lists ("dmisc"). I have no idea what manner of malevolence or incompetence you could possibly think that was that you found in your investigation such that it merited a single line "gotcha", but I'm quite done engaging your harangue. If you persist in seeing a problem where there is not one, bring it up at a noticeboard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for upsetting you, but looking up above at this discussion, it appears you've inferred and extrapolated intent and emotional content that simply does not exist. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say upset. All I can do is read your messages... and nothing about what you've said here suggests you're actually looking to have a discussion rather than, well, the word harangue is apt, I think. Add to that that I disagree (at least to some degree) with your premise and, well, it gets exhausting quickly. So let's not say upset, let's say a little annoyed. It's clear you were a little annoyed by my tagging yourself when you left your message or you would have taken a more collegial rather than pointed tack (or not left a message at all). And, again, I understand the occasional annoyance with the "drive-by". I just think you may be taking out your frustrations on the wrong person. I'm happy to have a real discussion about tagging sometime, if you like -- while I'm a little annoyed by this, I certainly don't have a personal problem with you -- but on that note I'd like to end this particular thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, yes I did remove some entries from the list of dystopian films. I did not realize I had to give reasons for these actions, but they were removed simply because they did not belong on that list. Forbidden Planet for example, is a film that is an outer space science fiction which takes place on another world. The sources included to "verify the inclusion" the films I removed were invalid as they were based on personal reviews of those films, and had nothing to do with what the films were actually about. Does anybody bother to check the sources here? The only one that could be argued was Cloverfield, which is about a huge and most likely alien monster destroying NYC. The monster lives at the end of the film, and is evidently continuing his destruction. However, our society in the film is exactly what it is today, and is therefore not dystopian. That particular film would more accurately be described as apocalyptic, and should be on that list instead. The other movies that do not belong on this list were Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and 2001: A Space Odyssey, for the same reasons I explained for Forbidden Planet. I have seen all of the movies I removed, and therefore know the story lines.

I will probably remove them again, and will provide my reasoning on each one then. If any of them are reverted after that, I will address each one accordingly. But I never make an amendment to any page on this site without being sure of my actions or information. Paulie151 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Paulie151: Thanks for the message.

I did not realize I had to give reasons for these actions - There's no firm requirement that you have to leave edit summaries, but additions of controversial content or removals of sourced content are likely to be reverted if it looks arbitrary (or if someone otherwise disagrees).

The sources included to "verify the inclusion" the films I removed were invalid as they were based on personal reviews of those films, and had nothing to do with what the films were actually about. Does anybody bother to check the sources here? ?? The source included to verify the inclusion of Forbidden Planet is not a "personal review" in the invalidating sense you intend it (like an unknown blogger, say). In fact it's not even a review at all. It's a book about film peer reviewed and published by a scholarly press. That's about as good as sources get.

It's kind of counter-intuitive, but what something "actually" is (and/or what this or that person says something "actually" is) is ultimately less important than whether it is verified in reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. Whether you or I say something is or is not a dystopian film is rendered irrelevant by the existence or absence of reliable sources. Verifiability, not "truth", is what matters. That means if the sources that are otherwise reliable get it wrong, it might be wrong on Wikipedia. It frankly gets really messy when it comes to things like thematic elements and genres.

The way it typically works is that list articles include things that are reliable sourced but there is more room for nuance when it comes to the article about the subject itself (in this case, Forbidden Planet).

Thanks again for your message. I'm happy to talk more about this. I know it's a frustrating thing sometimes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for the info, it certainly explains a lot. All of that being the case, it seems my efforts would be futile in this regard. I guess all we can do is try anyway and see what happens... Paulie151 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites, I am new here and wanted to complete the open access list in mathematics. I have checked all these journals but I understand your concern about wikipedia entries for them. I have indeed not checked that. However, please note that the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique has a Wikipedia entry. So, could we add it ?

Best regards, CoupleFromThePast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoupleFromThePast (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@CoupleFromThePast: Hi and thanks for your efforts to improve the list of open access journals. It is the case on Wikipedia that most lists are not intended to be exhaustive. The "common selection criteria" is more or less standard, and more often than not restricted to those entries which already have Wikipedia articles (as the easiest way to demonstrate notability for the purpose of including on a list). Such is the case for this list. I apologize that I did not verify that all of the ones you provided do not have articles -- I checked a few and made an assumption. I'll go back and check, adding those that do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@CoupleFromThePast: I've re-added Journal of Computational Geometry and Münster Journal of Mathematics. There is also an article for Compositio Mathematica, but it looks like they only have an open access option whereby an author can pay to make just his or her contribution open access (as opposed to an open access journal). I don't see the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique article, but by all means add it if there's an article and it's open access. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's quite ridiculous a pretence from you that I did something wrong, when including my artist name in that list of R&B musicians, since I'm a Music Producer, that produced many R&B songs already, and included as a reference on the page that list is at, a link allowing readers to verify by themselves that I'm R&B musician, as they would play tracks on the page I provided as a reference. I didn't create a Wiki page about myself, having seen it not allowed, but I did it right to include my name in that list and provided proof of that... Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? You are the one not making sense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@DonyTheGigaStar: I don't think you were intentionally trying to do something wrong and I apologize if I gave you that idea. But there are Wikipedia policies and guidelines which problematize the edit you made that you should be aware of.

Wikipedia doesn't have any lists of every artist in a given genre, but rather lists of artists with Wikipedia articles about them (see WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:CSC, and WP:N for more information about what "notability" means on Wikipedia).

Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? - Wikipedia very rarely considers primary sources to be reliable, even if an artist did have a Wikipedia article about them. reliable secondary sources are indeed required to show that someone is considered to be in a given genre. In other words, Wikipedia cares about what other people say about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. I believe you that you are R&B, but there are people who call themselves all manner of things so we have a policy (based on the core principle of neutral point of view) that we only call someone X if other people call that person X (with rare exception). It can be a pain, I know, but it's one of the things that allows Wikipedia to work at all. While you are not here to add spurious information, thousands of people do so every single day.

Finally, Wikipedia does have strict rules about self-promotion and conflict of interest, which it sounds like you've come across in some capacity. I shouldn't overstate it in this case, though, because like you point out, all you did was add yourself to a list rather than create an autobiography. I shouldn't have chosen promotion as the rationale I provided on your talk page because really the most straightforward reason I reverted was because there was no Wikipedia article for the name you added. I apologize for focusing on that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a R&B Music Producer of great talent. That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. The "notability" page even says that fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter... In my case I don't yet have a Wiki page, and I'm not going to corrupt any for making one appear for me, being not allowed to create one about myself or a product mine. So I provided a link to a page on which readers can play freely, R&B songs I produced, allowing them to verify that those are R&B songs original, produced by me themselves...That wasn't simply self-promotion, it's actually you the one simply making visible your choice of some other(s) having name(s) in that list, when deleting my name and prooving reference from the page, while being spoken of some from "major label" in the list, which supposed to be not seen as a proof of being R&B musician, since a called "major label" may simply be the one intructing someone to pronounce that and that, and act as if being musician, while doing nothing in the production of the music made popular... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. -- this is pretty well covered above.

fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter - right. what matters is that you cite multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If you wrote, performed, or produced the source, or if it is in any way connected to you, it's not a valid source for verifying something on Wikipedia as it cannot possibly be neutral. What we'd need are, for example, record reviews in reputable magazines/newspapers/books.

So I provided a link to a page... - while your intent is good, it's still not an appropriate link for Wikipedia

your choice of some other(s) - None of this is my opinion. This is how Wikipedia works. I'd encourage you to read more of the policy pages like those I link to above if you think this is personal. For the list, you just don't have a Wikipedia article. That's required to be added to the list.

spoken of some from "major label" in the list - label is not important. to be included on the list, having an article is the first requirement. sources which say "this artist is R&B" is the secondary requirement. labels, talent, and so on aren't part of what decides it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We are power hip hop 100 panama, a internet radio station in panama city. Our format is hip hop, r&b and reggaeton. We are applying for broadcast license for 100.9FM. Please include us to your list. Any additional information please contact us. info@powerhiphop100panama.com. gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.131.148.28 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume V, Issue III, March 2015 Headlines Africa report: Closing the gap of the Global South Belgium report: Gendergap and Belgiumgap Catalan areas report: One day at the radio France report: A very busy month! Germany report: 1 topic, 2 talks, 3 hours Italy report: Agreements with national cultural institutions and professional associations Mexico report: Wiki rides the subway editathon and second edition of the Editatona gender gap marathon Netherlands report: Nature, Art, Feminism and a GLAM-WIKI conference Poland report: Six months in Spain report: Women's edit-a-thons, Workshops and Miguel Delibes Sweden report: Fashion; BARK; Council of Central Museums UK report: GLAM activities in the UK USA report: Wikipedia in Philadelphia & New York Open Access report: Wikimania Open Access policy; Wikimania; Wikipedia Science Conference; Punch-card microfluidics Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

not sure how to explain why its removed without clogging the list. your wrong in putting it back. it was removed because these bands are merely an aesthetics of the culture not actual bands of the culture. they dont have the right sound. like saying pop is metal when its pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.192.110 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@68.115.192.110: Hi. So, for context we're talking about List of gothic rock artists, right? As Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, which means that everything on here should be verifiable in reliable sources, and does not permit original research, the only thing that matters for whether a band is on a list of "bands in genre X" is that we cite reliable sources labeling them as such. In other words, that an editor says a band simply is or is not an example of a certain genre matters much less than if a record review, magazine profile, etc. says so. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but really there would have to be a compelling reason involving challenging the sources used to remove them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs parts-I was having trouble finding anything and since I don't know Italian. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: For background, a whole lot of Evola's works were mass PRODed by an IP with no other edits (as I recall) a couple months ago. I hadn't heard of him, but as the PRODs smelled a bit POVish I looked for sources, determined at least a couple could sustain an article, and requested their restoration at WP:REFUND. ...But then kind of forgot until I saw your PRODs today. Articles about several of his other works are in similarly rough shape...we'll see what I have time for before I forget again :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was bored a few days ago and was tying to see articles marked for notability under a certain number of bytes created before on the tool searcher which is how I found them-a few of them I did put up for a AFD. (I also found articles that were stuff like a COI never marked for 9 years, ect!) Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday April 29 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

If you did a little research, you would know that The Overbrook Express played at most Bay Area venues during 1966-1969 including The Ark (Sausalito), The Strait Theater (haight Street), The new Orleans House, The Concord Armory, Long Shoremans Hall, etc etc. Please do not remove my edit. Do some reasearch. The Overbrook Express probably played on the same bill with every major Bay Area band in 1967. mareisland03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: Hi. I think you misunderstand why I removed the band. I believe you that they are a SF band. The issue is that lists of bands on Wikipedia are almost never a list of every band who falls into that category but a list of bands with Wikipedia articles about them who also fit in that category. There are literally thousands of bands from the Bay area. Overbrook Express may be a good band or even an influential band, but please write the The Overbrook Express article before adding them to the list. (I'd also check to make sure they pass the notability criteria for bands here: WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK then, be snoooooty, Im not going to argue the point with you. HOWEVER you are a "snooty, ...its gotta be by the books" azzhole. We played the bay area for 20 years...but that doesnt mean squat to you. Go ahead, be a sanctamoinios jerk. Rich Irwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: The rules I'm explaining are not mine. If I didn't remove the link, someone else would have. There's nothing snooty about it -- it's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a music database and contains only encyclopedic lists. It's nothing personal, I assure you. Having rules about such things is what makes Wikipedia work at all rather than become another Yahoo Directory, Answers.com, MySpace/FaceBook, and/or all the other sites on the web people use for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd recommend reading up on the core policies and guidelines: WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:NPA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

About the italics often words and names in foreign languages are italicized. The French school has its name rendered in French, so I italicize it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: MOS:FOREIGN: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." (Semper fi and modus ponens but not the name of a university). But maybe there's another guideline that contradicts this? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that before. It might be a good idea to ask on a talk page. I've been following the assumption that I should be italicizing names of organizations if their names are rendered in a non-English language. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Speaking just from experience writing in journalistic and academic contexts, the approach above is the way that is familiar to me, which is why I would've been surprised if there were a contradictory guideline. I saw the thread you started at WT:MOS and added it to my watchlist just in case. In the meantime, would you mind restoring the unitalicized version? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

About this - In regards to many countries' international schools it's extremely common for them to be in a K-12/maternelle through lycee, etc. configuration, meaning they have senior high school and get automatic presumed notability. This is especially true for American, French, British, and German schools. However I am aware that the Russian embassy schools in Mumbai and Chennai are primary only. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the common outcome regarding schools (based on AfDs in which articles were deleted) is that it doesn't apply to just any school that happens to include high school, but rather to high schools themselves. I will say, however, that I do have a general preference against citing common outcomes as justification in their own right rather than information to be aware of if one is going to nominate such an article for deletion (or, at its rhetorical peak, the basis for a supplementary argument). I digress. Regardless, the list in question has been operating as blue links only for a while now, so I'd request a talk page thread concerning the inclusion criteria prior to adding them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. What I can do with that page is add additional schools after creating their respective articles. It may be good to put in an internal comment saying not to list a school without making sure it has an article that is properly sourced. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks for doing that. I'll add that comment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that albunack.net has not established notability as yet. But please consider that the primary purpose of albunack is improve the quality and quantity of data within the open Musicbrainz database, this primary aim and the aims of MusicBrainz are very much in the spirit of wikipedia so I would hope that this page could be kept as it is essentially a tool for improving open data which must be something Wikipedia would be keen to encourage and would benefit Wikipedia. Ijabz (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ijabz: I do appreciate that it's in the spirit of Wikipedia, but every article subject does have to be notable. Sometimes that means not having an article about a very good website, software, person, organization, etc. It can be frustrating, but it's also the sort of rule that makes it possible to have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The idea is to remove editor judgment/bias from the equation and replace it with a quasi-objective assessment of the extent to which a subject is covered in reliable sources. We defer to the peer-reviewed, edited publications with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (well, at least that's the ideal). This might be a case of "too soon". It may receive press coverage in time, but for now it does not appear to me to be there. In such cases my personal preference for newer articles is to move them to the draft space or to a user page where it can be developed and sources found more gradually. Otherwise it's just a matter of time until someone stumbles upon the page and nominates it for deletion, sorry to say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Conformity_within_the_presidential_infoboxes with your comment "Seems to fit with WP:OVERLINK and standard procedure" did you mean to oppose instead of support? Just making sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for checking but I do mean support. WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie, I was just making sure. Generally when all someone says is WP:OVERLINK they simply mean it's overlinked. Perhaps you should put the rest in so whoever closes doesn't make the same mistake as me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)