Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 31 August 2009

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Chamar Discussion Page

In the Chamar discussion page; the other user has once again launched a personal attack on me AND he has also deleted some of the text that I have provided.

Can you please revert the text and notify Ravinder121 once again the respond to the article and not launch personal attacks. Bal537 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

I've blocked User:Ravinder121 24 hours for making personal attacks and have tweaked the section title, which he misunderstood, owing to your own sloppiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Like the poster below has stated: be polite and neutral and don't accuse other of being "sloppy". I do not consider what I wrote to be "sloppy". The other user has responded in the talk page for weeks without "misunderstanding" the text that was there for weeks. If he doesn't take the time to read carefully, I cannot be held responsible.

Also, I still do not understand why consider state by state population demographics that are sourced (official government census website) to be disruptive editing? What kind of consensus is needed for this information. Do you want other people to write that they agree with the census information or do you think that population demographic information for a social group is not important? 70.111.68.15 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

Your edits have indeed been sloppy, which is one of the reasons you haven't gotten very far with what you want to do. Another reason is, you've been soapboxing (as we call it here on en.Misplaced Pages). As for all those PDF files on state demographics, drawing conclusions from them could wind up being your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok,I will the demographic information in the same format as I have seen on numerous other wiki pages and you let me know if it ok or not.

As for "soapboxing" it is not me but the other user that has been soapboxing. For the past year, the other has been reverting my edits, has been accusing "false propanda" and "vandalism" just because he wants to persue his own agenda. All this person has been doing for the last year is reverting my edits and going to all different moderatorss talk pages and trying to get me blocked for vandalism.

On the discussion page, I have showed countless sources that show Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars. The other user has not been able to post a single source or does not even make any attempt to engage in any kind of discussion. But I know you don't care about this. I have a facebook group "Chamars" with over 400 members and we have decided to create a website to correct all the misinformation on wikipedia. 70.111.68.15 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

As you likely know, I've blocked the other user again for personal attacks and page blanking. Keep in mind, I haven't been watching this all that long yet and it took time to warn everyone and wait to see what would happen.

Yes, you can look at other articles to see how sources are handled and then do likewise, I'll be happy to look at what you come up with. Please try to keep your talk page posts fairly neat and short, even if it means dealing with things one step at a time.

Also, please remember to log in as User:Bal537 and always sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), it's very important that you always do these two things. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_29#Blood_of_Angels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_28#Blood_of_Angels. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Without citations to reliable sources carrying critical commentary on either the album or the album cover, the image cannot be carried on en.Misplaced Pages under fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your DRV links to neither a file nor an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was merged as I said. The sources are now all included in the merged article at Michelle Belanger and some of the sources also supporting can be found on the Nox Arcana article. All of the sources are relieable and have already gone through scrutiny. The image file was deleted by you, so obviously there's no link to that. I followed DRV instructions. Please look at the history of Blood of Angels (without the redirect). I'm unsure how to get to the history after the merge and redirect was done. Perhaps the history can be found if the redirect from Blood of Angels to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels is removed. Also, you need to consider the policy at WP:Music#Albums which clearly supports having an album article. The requirement to be met is not of sources but of notability of the band, for which there are a good number of reliable sources (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Post, Fangoria, Sideline, TV shows, and some international publications). Fair use is covered if the original album page Blood of Angels is undeleted. Also, the old article probably doesn't have all the newer cites that the merged one does, but I can easily copy cites from the merges into the undeleted article. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, three links which may help you.

• Last whole version of the article Blood Angel (now an RD to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels)
• article history
• 

Now, my take:

Many editors are likely to think the album Blood of Angels doesn't quite meet the en.Misplaced Pages notability threshold put forth at Misplaced Pages:Music#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs, because the topic is indeed on the edge of that threshold. There has been a wee bit of independent coverage, but that coverage may not be taken as significant by experienced editors. Hence the article was redirected to a section of the article Michelle Belanger, which is a notable BLP topic.

The kerfluffle now is mostly over the image. en.Misplaced Pages has a very stern policy on non-free images. The pith is, non-free images are a big drag on a free content site like this. So long as it stays non-free, the only way that image can be uploaded to en.Misplaced Pages is through Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Images as cover art, but only if in the context of critical commentary of that item.

The catch is, so far, there seems to be no cited critical commentary which is verifiable and independently sourced, only publicity and verifiable authorship, which isn't at all the same thing. Moreover, if there were, it is highly likely the album would still have its own stand alone article. So on en.Misplaced Pages, the editorial outcome is, it's unlikely that a non-free image of a cover will wind up in an article which is not about the work itself.

If the image were free (say, GNU or CC), it could be put at Michelle Belanger with no worries at all, since that topic is notable and there would be no fair use worries to deal with.

So long as the image is non-free, carrying it on en.Misplaced Pages could easily be a copyright violation, for the reasons I've written above. Sourced publicity and verifiable authorship aren't enough.

I hope this helps you understand what has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining but no, I really don't understand. The history of the original Afd for the article was populated by sockpuppets. Also, the new sources added to the article after merge are totally reliable. Washington Post, Plain Dealer, Fangoria, Dragon con — the panel at Dragoncon was titled Blood of Angels" and delt with the myth of watcher angels. It was based on the album's theme. The kerfluffle (nice word) is that this band is being singled out for deletion while there's tons of albums by similar bands which are permitted articles though they have no coverage in the press and have absolutely zero content except track list on their pages. I find sources and agree to a merge, then the same editor goes and finds another reason for Afd. I feel like every article I have worked on is being stalked. I just feel this issue was handled very unfairly. I hope you intend to nominate every album on wiki without content for deletion. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The image isn't free, so it's a big worry unless it can be put in an article about a straightforwardly notable album. Full stop, 30-30. Meanwhile, see Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned that before: '"Other Stuff Exists" to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never chat=rted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect). Ebonyskye (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way, a wee slice of users, often through sockpuppets and for many and sundry reasons, can and do roam about looking for weaknesses to attack. There are very likely thousands of album and other articles about artistic works on en.Misplaced Pages that would either never make it through an AfD, or couldn't withstand a cleverly crafted and timed one. Some can and do stay on the site for years, with those readers who see them not thinking twice about it. Topics on the edge of WP:N are often not dealt with fairly and I know it stings to think that sockpuppets, which are mostly not allowed but in truth are everywhere (and many would be startled to learn who runs some of them), had something to do with it. Nobody has said anything because it's all a big, docking can of beans. On the bright side, I do think that topic could gather some independent critical commentary and since Michelle Belanger indeed meets WP:BIO, the article could easily come back if that happens. Meanwhile, please keep in mind, it mostly came down to the image, which was daunting only because it wasn't free. Had it been GNU or CC, it would be in Michelle Belanger where, by the bye, readers are at least redirected and get a basic, sourced read up on the album. I'd say in a few years, the packaging and at least lower res audio files for most commercially produced music will very likely be given away under free licences and moreover, films will likely follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think Blood of Angels could be restored for a new AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacyee Lee Dugard

Hi. I don't know you and I know you're trying your damndest to keep the Jacyee Lee Dugard article in a sane format and I think most of what you've done is good and within policy and consensus, but I worry from a read of the talk page that you've started to - unintentionally I'm sure - take ownership of the page. I'm just presenting my own personal outside third party perspective. I know you're the most experienced editor looking at this page, but I'm just getting that feeling from the last two days of watching the page. I'm not trying to make an issue or cause drama, I'm just a little concerned and asking that you keep an eye out for it. --CastAStone/ 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That page is a mess; I applaud Gwen for wading in and keeping an eye on it. Good edits from good editors are being stepped all over. Don't worry...it will clear up in a few days...maybe a week.  Frank  |  talk  02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As for WP:OWN, I think the article's contribution history speaks louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quelle foire. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, you wiped out my commentary on the Jayvee Dugard talk page. Since refactoring a discussion page like that is highly misleading, and is against WP policy, i am assuming this was a mistake rather than an intentional act of pique. I have restored my comments. Cheers. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, didn't happen that way. See WP:Baiting to learn there's nothing new about what you're doing. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more clear; i'm talking about this diff: where you wiped out my talk page comments and explained the deletion as "reverting." I restored my comments, but i was curious as to what happened, and, as i said above, i was assuming it was a mistake. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm sorry. One of those few times I thought to ask for a diff but didn't. That was my botch, a mistaken right click rollback, my right ring finger can hover a bit too closely over the mouse button whilst I'm scanning my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know about my clumsiness, both with the mouse and my answer above. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, it's not a stray right click, after playing about with this, I've found it happens when I swiftly sweep the cursor across the screen whilst reading (I do that): I made a few dozen careless test sweeps over a page thick with wlinks and lo, my index finger did smunch down unbidden at the far end of a rightwards sweep when the cursor happened to over a link and zap it went. Guess I'll be more careful about sweepin' the mouse about when I'm looking at my watchlist :)

John Crippen

By the Misplaced Pages definition I was not being disruptive (I guess you didn't read the "Dump") I was just asking for help. Sorry to bother you. Take care, JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen!

↜Just M E here , now 23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NWO errand boi

Robert McNamara. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

kinda stunning

See the molecule. See the neat hexagons. See the tidiness. Wondrous. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow -- you can actually see the hexagonal carbon rings, and the symmetrical white blurs at top and bottom are actually hydrogen atoms. Incredible. I wondered if they'd ever be able to do that someday. Antandrus (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)