User talk:Dontreader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Oh Hi Don! I hope I'm doing this right. Yeah C and K are great. They were in a movie with Mallika Sherawat! Sadly I can't edit her wikipedia page. Thanks for your updates as well! Anita

Bollywooddancer7 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2012



Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Dontreader, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms and neutrality[edit]

I've reverted two of your edits. Critics or supporters are never neutral and we don't require neutrality, what we require is a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. You also probably should read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to see what we mean by reliable sources. Professor Woods seems to be a reliable source, see [1]. There was a problem in that the link was to a copy of an article and the copy was in breach of copyright, so I replaced the link. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically I'm saying that we can use Woods but must attribute anything we use to him so readers know who said it and we are not stating it as a fact. We have a forum where you can challenge this, it's WP:RSN and I don't mind at all if you do that. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


See WP:Indent. Material does get copied from one article to another, but if you ever do that, put in the edit summary the name of the article (with a wikilink) that it's copied from. Even though we release our edits, they are still copyright, so copying them from one article to another without attribution to the article (where it can then be traced through the article's history) is a copyright violation - copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can Facebook images be used for uploading to Commons?[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Dear experienced Wikipedians, I would greatly appreciate some help with this matter. I wish to add a picture to an article that is a biography of a living person. The official website of this person has a link to her official Facebook page, and although there are many pictures on her official website, what if I want to upload to Commons a picture I found on her official Facebook page, supposing I get proper permission from her (if she's the owner of the picture) to do so? After all, the act of posting a picture on Facebook does not transfer copyright ownership of the picture to Facebook. The official website of the person is of the form, and her official email address, stated on her website, is of the form; therefore, if both I, and later the volunteers at Commons, get proper permission from her email account (again, supposing she owns the picture) to upload the photo to Commons, would there be a problem because the picture is from outside her website, on Facebook?

Many thanks in advance...

Dontreader (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Imaging instructions

To use a picture on Wikipedia, we need permission from whoever owns it.

  • If it is your OWN picture - then you can just upload it yourself, at "Commons", saying "It is entirely my own work" - at .
  • If it is NOT YOURS, then the owner can give permission in two ways;
A) They could put it on a website (flickr, or their own site) with an appropriate licence, such as "Public Domain" or "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike" (that is an option in flickr)
B) They could email us permission. You could ask them to do that, by sending them an email saying something like:
"Hi, I've written a page on Wikipedia, and I'd really like to add a picture - but as Wikipedia is FREE, we can only use freely-licenced pictures. If you have any which you can give permission for, please send me an email back with the text below, and the picture(s) attached."
-Then add a copy of this: (having filled the form out)
-And send the email (attached picture file + completed form) to:

If any of your questions about how to insert images into an article aren't answered in these instructions, please refer to Help:Files and to Help:Contents/Images and media for a master-listing of all pertinent image-use links.
Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ref: Discography addition on Harp Twins page[edit]

Hi, see that you have answered you'r own question.

I had not added the iTunes references myself as I didn't think they would be allowed on Wikipedia as it is a form of advertising.

Thanks for adding the references.

Robcamstone (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. See User:Crowdsalesmed added Amazon so hopefully it's OK to use such sites to reference the singles. I have just added links for Amazon and cdbaby. So as to show we are only using the sites as references and not trying to advertise a specific site.

As a newbie one of the hardest things I have found is providing or justifing sources. Hope to get better at it in time.

Anyway thanks for getting back to me hope you also have a great day to.

Robcamstone (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. you had no need to a apologize we both want the same thing which is to keep the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page up to date and you have helped to improve the discography section. Robcamstone (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

REF: More Harp Twins songs[edit]

Hi Dontreader,

Thanks for contacting me.

I don't mind at all you asking me to added them after all I had started the discography section and so have an interest in keeping it up-to-date. I had meant to add the new tracks sooner. I have added them now, thanks for the links.

I have copied the Discography Section to my sandbox to work on, as I have notice lack of continuity between the iTunes and SoundCloud sections which I wish to fix.

Hope you also have a good Christmas.



Robcamstone (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref: Discography for Camille and Kennerly Kitt[edit]

Hi Dontreader,

Just to let know I have re-design the Discography Section for Camille and Kennerly Kitt, hope you like it should make reading and updating easier (I hope!)


Rob Robcamstone (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

IP vandal[edit]

I've reverted a number of this IP's edits but as the IP hasn't edited for 6 days haven't blocked, but left a final warning saying I will if this continues. It's possible this is a dynamic IP and the editor may reappear on another IP address, one reason I haven't blcoked (as that would mean blocking the wrong person if the IP address changed). Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ref: Camille and Kennerly[edit]

Hi Dontreader, there is no rush for you to edit the page and you have no need for justifying your actions to me.

I only gave a personal opinion on the number of references other editors/readers may disagree. I could be wrong, it would not be the first time ;-)

I'm not precious about my edits as they could be changed, amended or deleted any time by any wikipedia user.

Only do edits that you believe in as and when you can. After all we all, I hope have a life out side of wikipedia and the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page is not going anywhere.

Your health is more important then a page on wikipedia, hope you feel better soon.

Regards, Rob.

Robcamstone (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your article[edit]

It was first nominated by WP:PROD then by WP:AFD. That happens often enough to not be unusual. I'd be surprised if it was deleted, although you might find it gets changed quite a bit. My advice is not to worry about it - and not worry too much about the changes. I'll take a closer look tomorrow if I have time. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Hi Dontreader, glad we have saved Camille and Kennerly Kitt article, but less then happy at the unjustified attack I received for perfoming the task as requested by the original template and the covert threats made towards me by Tokyogirl79 I had not vandalised the page by removing the template, but perform the task it requested of me. Don't understand why if she had no true opinion she took action. Once you take action in what ever form you are stating an opinion.

Forgive my ramblings, just came here to say Thank You Robcamstone (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ref: Regarding the ongoing discussion[edit]

That's not going to happen, she called me a vandal and all I done was complete the request of the PROD template, I only made negative comments after she attacked me, when did defending oneself became a crime‽

If anybody needs to apologize it is her. She has yet to explain her actions and instead has hidden behind her clicky administrator friends. I stand by what actions I took and the wiki history for all related pages provides the truth.

If her and her friends, want to turn against me, that's not a problem on a website as large as this you can not get on with everybody and if she takes negative action in the future, that will just prove that she should not keep her administrator rights.

She is still trying to rewrite the facts, she now saying "If it had come up in PROD format, at least proper PROD format, I'd have just ignored its removal." this is in fact the only template I removed or anybody removed as far as I know nobody removed AfD template.

If you go to her talk page you will see, that she is not at all interested in the true, I see that you pointed out to her that I complied with Wikipedia rules, yet she is still implying that I was trying to delete the AfD and stop the debate. which is not true.

I am now of to take that wikibreak and not sure I will return. regards, Rob

User:Robcamstone/UBX/Fan of the Harp Twins

Robcamstone (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for prompt removal of proposal for deletion sign[edit]

Restricting nominating an article for deletion to only administrators is not going to happen. The discussion can only be closed by an administrator, but preventing the former would do more harm than good.

The article was kept because the arguments made for deletion did not suffice. LFaraone 05:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: References section format on Camille and Kennerly Kitt[edit]

Hi Dontreader, Thanks for contacting me, I have left a response on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article talk page. Have a good weekend and keep up the good work, regards Rob Robcamstone (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref: Camille and Kennerly Kitt[edit]

Hi Dontreade,

I have left a detail response on Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt in which you will see that I steal support you. I have also added "requested comments" tag to the top of the page my comment.

I know how upsetting this is, but I feel you need to watch your responses as you could get yourself blocked, which would be very upsetting for yourself and damaging for the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article if it was to lose one of it's main editors.

Sorry if you felt you had lost my support, I hope now you will see I just need time to respond.

Regards, Rob Robcamstone (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your message[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me, I hope you keep backups of your work on your hard-drive, so you don't have to re-write them, I personally, do not rely on sandboxes as backup as I have had editors, edit my sandboxes. So I copy and pass my Wikipedia articles into notepad and save them on my hard-drive.

I did not think you were being rude, but was concerned how others might see you.

Keep up the great work you do, may be best if you put your updates on hold until we see what the outcome is, but that is for you to decide Robcamstone (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

BHG talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dontreader. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reference formating[edit]

Hi again,

Just found this PDF on Wikipedia may help us to learn how to create correctly formatted References


Regards, Rob Robcamstone (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my page hope you have a great day too. Give yourself a break. Once I work out the correct formatting techniques I will help with the reference section. Robcamstone (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Camille and Kennerly Kitt[edit]

You need to put a {{Not a typo}} or similar template around the 247/wikilink. It's listed as an error and will keep popping up on the error list. So, hopefully somebody else doesn't "unmistake" it again. Knowing me, I'll forget and do the same thing again. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

REF: Harp Twins Discography section[edit]

Hi, until you pointed it out, I had not notice that the refrences had gone.

Must agree I feel he/she is out to destroy the article, but very cleverly as he has yet to break any Wikipedia rules and we did have a debate about the use of iTunes, CD Baby, etc, and we decide to use them and see the response, now we have it.

He use the argument Wikipedia is not a directory of download links and he's not wrong there something we were concerned about at the time we used them.

I'm not clear how any Wikipedia article stays around as any editor could find and justify reasons for it's deletion.

Have you considered creating your own wiki where you will have full editorial control Wikia is one of many sites out there.

I have Fixed references in line with Template:Reflist#List-defined references should help make editing and adding new references more straightforward. Let me know if I have intruded any errors can happen with sure a large edit regards, Robcamstone (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take it easy[edit]

Hi Dontreader

Hope you are keeping well, and that wherever you are is getting some of the sunshine which is blessing the West of Ireland today :)

After our discussions on my talk page (permalink) I took a look this afternoon at the page we had been discussing: Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt.

I didn't like what I saw, and left a few comments there. I think you mean well, but you are getting a lot of things badly wrong, mostly arising from an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies, but also from a severe sense of WP:OWNership of that article. I and others have warned you about this several times, but this is starting to look to me like a case of what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I strongly urge you to take a break from that article, and contribute to articles on topics to which you have less personal commitment. If you continue like this, you may find yourself getting formal warnings which could rapidly lead to restrictions on your ability to edit, and I don't want to see that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On being an effective editor[edit]

Good evening,

I'd like to ask a favor of you. Would you consider not editing the Witt page for a couple of months? Instead, I'd like to ask that you spend that time following (and eventually contributing to) the discussion at the wikipedia teahouse. It's a discussion board where newer editors can ask any question they like and more experienced editors go out of their way to answer politely (and without using the soup-of-acronyms approach). I think you'll find that most new editors go through problems very similar to what you're experiencing, and reading all of those questions and responses might let you avoid a few mistakes going forward.

When that gets dull, you might want to follow the discussions at WP:ANI, WP:AFD, WP:MCQ, WP:FTN, and WP:DRN (and keep up with WP:RS). These are all populated (to a first approximation) by people who want to improve wikipedia but are having difficulty coming to an agreement on how to do so. You'll see a lot of the same mistakes being made, both in terms of policy and interpersonal communication, and you'll then know not to make those mistakes. You'll also see a lot of effective arguments made by experienced editors who command a lot of respect; there's a lot to learn from them, too.

Finally, before you go back to the Kitts, try this: find an impeccably reliable source (the topic doesn't matter, but the more obscure the better). Use that source to improve a few articles. Since you don't have any emotional attachment to the topic or the articles, if you get reverted it's no big deal (and you can start a stress-free discussion as to why you got reverted). What I think you'll find, though, is that when you start from a source (rather than starting from a topic), editing is mostly drama-free. (There are exceptions and I have the bumps on my head to prove it, but still....)

Then go back to the Kitts. There's an alternative music project that has a listing of WP:GA and WP:FA ("good articles" and "featured articles") that reflect the best of our work here. Find out what makes those articles good and see if you can bring the Kitts article up to those standards. That's a lot of work, but it can be immensely rewarding.

The reason I suggested all of that is if you continue to focus on just that one article, you're going to (understandably) keep making the kinds of mistakes newbies make, and that can get really frustrating really fast. If you branch out a bit now you can have the benefit of watching other people make mistakes and learning from them without the angst. That's going to make you an effective editor a lot more quickly. I hope you consider it.


Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my advice in the spirit in which it was intended. As far a "protecting" the Kitts article goes, it's on my watchlist and I'll certainly keep an eye on it. However, excepting vandals and sock puppets, "protection" is not something we do here. Once things cool off a bit, if there's a disagreement we'll sit down and go through the messy, tedious process of hammering out a compromise. (You can watch other folks going through this at WP:DRN to get an idea of what's involved.)
But that's in the future. For now, as I said, I will keep an eye on things. You have some exploring to do—have fun! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Luck![edit]

Hi Dontreader,

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you done on the Harp Twins, hope you don't feel under valued. I will not be adding any new content to Wikipedia as User:Duffbeerforme has now turn to getting two unrelated articles I created deleted. and has removed references from another two articles so that's four articles in total. I can't prove it, but I consider it a form of Stalking (Wikipedia:Harassment).

I'm not going to contest the deletion requests as far as I'm concerned, the lose is Wikipedia's not mine.

Thanks for you time and support.

Regards, Rob Robcamstone (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme You need to list where the personal attacks are taking place. Bgwhite (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Where? User talk:Robcamstone, User talk:Lesser Cartographies Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, User talk:BrownHairedGirl, User talk:Bgwhite. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
duffbeerforme No, they all don't show personal attacks. Most of them just says that Dontreader does not like you. You leaving the the NPA message to begin with was wrong. First, leveling accusations without proof is also a personal attack. Secondly, with Dontreader's and your history for each other, you should have gone elsewhere and have another person leave the message, if warrantied. Coming from a third party might have let the message sink in. This is a personal attack that probably resulted you in leaving the message. Yes, Dontreader, that is a personal attack that you should never have done. There are editors around here who I don't like, but I try (but not always successful) to play nice. Dontreader, don't mention Duffbeerforme again in any messages. Your hatred of Duffbeerforme will only result in more vitriol and caustic words.
Duffbeerforme does also share some of the blame. Some of their talk messages were not the best. Some insults did fly and messages were terse. I do believe you went after Robscamstone's articles to look for what could be deleted. I haven't done any searching, but just looking at the AfD's you seem correct. Nevertheless, I think you targeted them, which is wrong.
Dontreader, don't speak of Duffbeerforme again. Duffbeerforme don't work on one of Robcamstone's or Dontreader's articles. Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme, your actions have virtually killed Robcamstone, and yet you threaten ME with getting blocked? Dontreader (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This was wrong of you Dontreader. Equating Duff to a demon and then say they will suffer in the afterlife is a personal attack that can get someone blocked. If I see it again, I will block you. Besides, I know a demon when I see one and I have seen my mother-in-law alot. Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Second NPA warning[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Camille and Kennerly Kitt. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
It doesn't matter what you suspect of Duffbeerforme's motivations; you still have to assume good faith. Arguments that show a lack of good faith are going to be discounted heavily. Continued bad-faith arguments will ultimately result in your account being blocked. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, yes Dontreader didn't Assume good faith, but neither did Duffbeerforme. Duffbeerforme did fire the first shot. It's obvious Dontreader and Duffbeerfrome can't work together. I also believe Duffbeerforme only edited the page to piss off Dontreader. I've asked Duffbeerforme to stop editing the page and they refused. I've asked Duffbeerforme to stop having contact with Dontreader and they refused. I've also asked Dontreader to stop editing the page he did until this latest incident. Note, Dontreader did ask me first to take a look before editing the page. I wasn't available and Dontreader did edit the page 19 hours later. (if I'm reading times right). At this point both Duffbeerforme and Dontreader are in the wrong. Atleast Dontreader does acknowledge fault, Duffbeerforme does not. Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Dontreader. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Final warning[edit]

I'm writing the same message to both of you. I am sick and tired of both of you acting like five-year old kids on Camille and Kennerly Kitt.

This is the last civility warning I issue. The next time blocks will happen.

Dontreader. Forget about this article. You are too wrapped up by Duff's actions. Let it go. Don't edit, write or talk about the article. Take it off of your watchlist. Move on. Duff is provoking you, just don't take bait. You've taken the bait in the past and said some not-so-nice things. If you see something that needs to be changed or Duff makes an edit, DONT DO ANYTHING. Just report it to me.

Duffbeerforme. I've asked you to stay away to de-escalate the situation. You said no because I can't make you. You've made all of 50 edits all of this month. You just had to make minor edit to Kitt's page. Then you say on the talk page, "It appears my changes were reverted not because they were wrong or misleading but because I made them and someone else owns this shrine." You then follow Dont to other pages. Nothing says prodding more than that. You stay away from Kitt's article and Dont. By doing so, you are doing purely to provoke and prod Dont. If you see something that needs to be changed or Dont makes an edit, DONT DO ANYTHING. Just report it to me.

From WP:Civility on what constitutes an uncivil act, "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken." Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits on the Harp Twins page[edit]

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

I have seen your list on the Harp Twins talk page; I appreciate the time you took to write it. Here are my observations for tonight:

1. Restore cites to [2], [3], and other TV appearances.

Obviously I support this. I believe all of the TV appearances should be added again because since the Harp Twins are notable but not famous, I think these TV features which show some of their work are notable in their case.

2. Remove reference to book launch.

Two book launches, actually (one in New York City and one in Los Angeles). Martin Schoeller is a very notable photographer and both venues are notable as well, such as the Ace Gallery in Beverly Hills, but after doing some research, I agree that the events are not notable enough, even taking into account the context of the Kitt Twins not being famous. The events have virtually zero coverage in reliable sources. Feel free to remove them.

3. Remove references to private parties.

Here I think you are including the CUSP Conference, which is not a private "party", but although the CUSP conference was held at a notable venue, the event lacks notability (I cannot find good independent sources that covered it). Feel free to remove this reference.

However, the Jean Paul Gaultier party is a totally different matter since he is a top haute-couture fashion designer, known in every civilized part of the world. There were many notable people at that party, including Dita von Teese. It was a high society event that was covered more than sufficiently by solid reliable sources. The fact that the Harp Twins were hired to perform in San Francisco (they live in Chicago) speaks for itself. They were guest performers providing background music, which is why the references to them are brief, but here's one you may not have seen yet:

Taking into account that they are not famous, this is a notable performance in their careers as musicians. Although I cannot prove every detail, their hairdos were designed several days before the event by using pictures of them to examine their hair type and length. They were transported to the venue in a limousine, as can be seen here:

And they were carried onto the stage to make the spectacle more interesting:

And here they are with Gaultier himself:

The Harp Twins have performed at HUNDREDS of venues. I have agreed to the removal of the book release parties and the CUSP conference performance, but this event was huge (by the standards of non-famous musicians) and must stay.

4. Remove references to performances at political events.

They should be kept. Absolutely. These are/were influential politicians of the most powerful country on Earth. It's a shame they couldn't get a picture with President Obama, but please take a look at the info. What might be needed, perhaps, is to clarify the presidential event.

There's no doubt that they were there, playing their harps:

Taking into account the context (they are not famous, and they were just musical guests), you can't really expect to find reliable sources of their presence at the event, but they clearly performed there.

Similarly, U.S. Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert Retirement Banquet:

Also, performing for luncheon where First Lady Laura Bush was the featured speaker:

And with Vice President Dick Cheney after playing for a dinner where he was the featured speaker:

Some of these events are more notable than others, since some are fundraisers, but these are all extremely notable people that they performed for. These performances for very important political figures are an impressive (and even key) portion of their accomplishments as musicians.

5. Verify "for" is supported by the political event citation.

Judging by the material I provided, I cannot say that they performed FOR the President; just that they performed at an event which the President attended. I don't know. Their harps were checked thoroughly by the Secret Service because the president was attending the event, so they were most likely at the venue at the same time as the President. Anyway, "at a dinner for US President Barack Obama" could be seen as if the dinner was for the President. I don't see why the word "for" is so controversial. If you feel like it should be modified, then feel free to do so.

6. Remove mention of commercial due to lack of WP:RS.

Now this is regrettable since their acting part is already thin. There used to be two sources. The one that is left is not reliable but what else could they be doing in the picture? And would they lie in their tweet? Of course not. The dead link shows the entire commercial, in which they have an important part although they do not speak. It's a very short commercial but for a big company. I can't find it on YouTube (the product might be obsolete already). But do we really have to put this page under such a powerful microscope? There was a great link with the commercial, which is dead now. There is no doubt that they were in the commercial. The lollipop commercials are still on YouTube. If you think the Toshiba commercial reference should be removed despite the good but dead reliable source, then feel free to remove it.

7. Verify use of blogs is appropriate for sources.

Of course this should be verified, and I believe I have done that. Blogs can be fine, depending on the situation, or bad. If a statement is made that is clearly proven by even a poor blog, I don't see a problem. But I think the important claims that are made in the article are supported by good-enough blogs or sites that are not blogs at all, and the Huffington Post has a much higher status than a common "blog". When it comes to their activities as children, typically you just have to take their word for it, since there is usually no independent source. That goes for all artists (famous or not) and celebrities in general.

8. Verify the quote used here represents the sense of the article.

The article is odd but I see it as complimentary. The video is certainly not being criticized at all. Since my word "praised" was taken out, there is nothing wrong with quoting the sentence in question using a neutral word, which is currently the case. At the very least, Mallika Rao is saying that the video is very unique, so I see no reason for taking out that quote. The word "praised" is gone; that was the only problem.

9. User "blogger" to describe HuffPost authors to avoid confusion.

Logically I oppose this. What confusion? The Huffington Post is very well known, at least here in the US. Let me state again, besides, what the Huffington Post says about Mallike Rao:

"Mallika Rao is an arts and entertainment reporter for the Huffington Post." There is no need to change that in the article.

10. Verify "11 million views" exists in cited source, replace source or remove text if not sourceable.

If the source does not support the claim, then remove it. The YouTube channel of the Harp Twins is an external link. The proof is there. It's very easy to corroborate that information using the external link, so I'll let you decide if you want to use a YouTube citation or let people figure it out easily for themselves by using the external link. Here are the 11 million views:

That says (right now) 11,249,474 views.

11. Find good source for "particularly significant worldwide media attention", take into account WP:PEACOCK.

I wrote that to show that they were not fading away. I thought the article was being targeted for deletion again. The statement is true because in August they really exploded on the Internet like never before, and as a result, they received over a million views during that month alone. That's when Yahoo! had them on their front page, and from there they were featured even on international TV channels in a chain reaction. However, feel free to take out that part and perhaps just begin the sentence (as it is) with "In August 2013, the Kitt Twins" and then add the August events.

Here are two proposals of my own:

a) Please reconsider letting the Yahoo! material back into the article; that was a big deal. That's what caused their Internet fame to really soar like never before, and that's why they were on Spanish and Russian TV. For a non-famous musician/band, to be featured on the main page of Yahoo! is quite an acknowledgment, in my opinion.

b) If you look here: Roar (song)#Plagiarism accusations, you will see this line:

In response to the accusations, Dr. Luke, producer and co-writer of "Roar" tweeted on August 14, 2013: "Roar was written and recorded before Brave came out."

The source that is provided is a tweet from Dr. Luke's official Twitter account; therefore, if that is acceptable then I propose that this tweet by the composer of the music for The Walking Dead be included:

The article could say that Bear McCreary tweeted that the version made by the Harp Twins is "awesome". It's not every day that non-famous artists get praise from the artist that they cover.

Thanks for reading all of this material. Dontreader (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That you for the care you've taken in assembling the above. I hope to make a proper start on it in twelve hours or so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps other similar cover bands which are more recent[edit]

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

To be honest, and even though this sounds biased, the Harp Twins are an extremely unique "creature". I mean this in several ways, but the clearest example is that they are like one person, each having performed the same activities since birth, the same schools, same grades (Summa cum Laude), same interests, have never spent a day apart, and when they reply to their fans, they speak in the plural form, never specifying who is writing the replies. So, in some ways, they are like a musician more than a band. This makes their biographical section look more like that of one person, but please keep in mind that in general, they seem more like an artist than a group or duet.

Here are some newer groups that make covers (at least as their major "claim to fame"), and who began as classically-trained musicians, but I will also include a solo artist who collaborates with others; however, some have recording contracts. If these example are not good, I will look for some more.


The Piano Guys

Lindsey Stirling (an independent artist, like the Harp Twins - keep in mind that soon the Harp Twins will release their first physical CD)

I hope this helps. Thanks again for your work. Dontreader (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you—that's helpful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about #3[edit]

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

Regarding this sentence, "The Harp Twins performed on both days of the Cusp Conference 2011 at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago.", I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "I expect other citations can be found to cover those." I agreed that the CUSP Conference performance could be removed since in my opinion it's not notable enough, but since you asked for other citations, please look at this one since I don't know if you want to remove CUSP or not:

That's their performance, and at least to me it looks rather notable, especially considering the venue, but I myself can't seem to find enough coverage, plus perhaps that link is not suitable. Please let me know what you think. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There's the performance as well as three citations to the performance. The "cusp" citation is used two other places in the article. I'm proposing to remove mention of the performance as well as the three citations. The other places where the "cusp" citation was used may need a different citation to replace the old "cusp" cite. Let me know if that's still confusing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Lesser Cartographies. Then by all means remove the CUSP Conference performance; I wish it had had more coverage but that's life. I think the citation you are referring to intends to support the statement regarding the film Delivery Man, as well as Highway to Hell, right? If so, I can't find independent sources to prove that they are in the film Delivery Man (their roles in that movie are very tiny), so that part should be removed. Also, there's no need for that link next to their Highway to Hell track in the discography section. Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

New list entries[edit]

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

I have realized due to the modification of the talk page made by Crowdsalesmed that you added more entries to the list. Please notify me here in the future if there are more list entries, and please add my own two suggestions (for example, the inclusion of Bear McCreary's tweet, since that is a very notable compliment, worthy of being in the article unless tweets are forbidden, but I showed you another page where a tweet is used).

12. Do sources justify occupations? ("Harpists, Actresses, Performers, Arrangers, Composers")

The CUSP reference is fine. Clearly a different reference (#2) is being used to justify "international" since that cite treats of a performance in Canada. However, I don't see the need for a citation at all to justify their occupations. Those statements are logically obvious. There is no doubt that they are harpists, performers and actresses. To doubt that they are "arrangers" and "composers" could only be considered a very bizarre conspiracy theory, and that the Harp Twins are basically a hoax.

13. Do sources justify use of "release" to describe covers?

The sources were there but were taken out by Duff, so it's reprehensible that he is now bringing up that question. Bgwhite told me to insert the iTunes links next to each track. Please talk to Bgwhite.

14. Is a listing of covers appropriate?

Totally appropriate. I don't see any sense in asking that question.

Thanks again, and please remember to notify me here if more items are added to the list. Thank you very much. Dontreader (talk)

Ahh crap Dont. Remember when I said focus on the question and not the person? Duff can bring up anything he wants about the article. Lesser doesn't know everything that has been said, especially on other talk pages. Please direct Lesser to the relevant discussion and state your case. My reasoning maybe wrong, it won't be the first time. Let Lesser decide. Don't mock other's questions... "I don't see any sense in asking that question". Stop it. Bgwhite (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I apologize. I am actually trying to be very careful but it's frustrating that I have to spend even more time defending more issues, and not knowing if this will go on forever (enumerating more items for discussion, and defending against them). I need to leave the computer for a few hours but when I come back I will paste here on my talk page your instructions again and make sure that I memorize them. It's hard to remember everything all the time, especially considering that some rules that you have imposed have changed due to Lesser's proposal, but I will do my best. I'm very sorry about that. It won't happen again. Dontreader (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dontreader. Please help me out by copying suggestions to their own subsection on your talk page. I will notify you of changes to the list, and I've added the suggestion to use the tweet as a reference. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies,
Thanks for adding the Bear McCreary tweet suggestion to the list; it was lazy of me not to look up the other one I proposed, which would have made life easier for you, so here it is:
  • Please reconsider letting the Yahoo! material back into the article; that was a big deal. That's what caused their Internet fame to really soar like never before, and that's why they were on Spanish and Russian TV. For a non-famous musician/band, to be featured on the main page of Yahoo! is quite an acknowledgment, in my opinion.
Also, here is one more example of a similar type of musician that might be helpful (this article can be read very quickly): Taylor Davis (violinist). Notice that the deficiencies are so huge that it makes the Kitt article look like a featured article.
On an unrelated note, please let me know if you agree with any of my suggestions for that article that you wrote. Perhaps I should have made the observations on the talk page first. Please let me know that you have found this edit to my page since it's rather hidden among the trees. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I've left notes on the future overall structure of the article on the article's talk page. After allowing a couple of days for comment, I'll be incorporating existing and new suggestions based on that blueprint. I haven't made a pass through your talk page recently to pick up new suggestions; I'll be doing that in a couple of days. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing my decision on CUSP Conference performance[edit]

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

Based on the arguments put forth by Crowdsalesmed (who created the article, by the way), I conducted some more research on the CUSP Conference performance, and although I have not found "new" notable coverage, I have decided that the article written in the Chicago Tribune is more than sufficient to establish notability of the event:

That's a top 10 US newspaper in terms of circulation. It's not surprising that the event was covered by the Chicago Tribune since the CUSP Conference has indeed featured many famous speakers, as Crowdsalesmed pointed out, including the very notable designer Yves Béhar in 2011 when the Harp Twins performed as musical guests.

Concerning the notability of the performance of the Harp Twins, it is notable enough. They had the stage all to themselves, as can be seen in this video which I already gave you (which was made by CUSP to actually promote the event for the following year):

They even address the attendants at the end of the video. The venue is also extremely notable, but what I also want to stress is that this link is very good:

That proves that the CUSP Conference organizers gave them plenty of importance, and as I said, the video featuring the Harp Twins proves that they were not just sitting in a corner somewhere playing their harps.

Notable event, notable venue, notable performance. Dontreader (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a few updates on the talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BgWhite's instructions (Wikipedians, please do not write under this entry - write under the previous entry instead)[edit]

This is the last civility warning I issue. The next time blocks will happen.

If you see something that needs to be changed or Duff makes an edit, DON'T DO ANYTHING. Just report it to me.

Dontreader, Lesser came up with the idea after my warning. I think Lesser has a very good idea. Lesser will be making the changes in the article.

You and Duff are not making any changes.

You are welcome to make a list of changes that should be done. You are also welcome to talk about any changes Lesser may or may not be doing. You will be discussing the changes on your talk page. Duff won't be writing on your talk page and visa versa.

Focus on the edits and not who proposed them.

You won't like some edits being made. You will like other edits.

Neither you nor duff are editing the article or talking to each other.

Lesser is acting as a neutral party making the changes. Things are ok with respect to my warning. But if one of you starts editing the article or talking to each other, well, lets not go down that path.

  • As promised, Bgwhite, I have everything now on my talk page in one section, and I will keep it at the bottom of my page. Dontreader (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The plan for the Harp Twins page seems to be changing[edit]

Hello Bgwhite and Lesser Cartographies,

This situation is troubling me. I thought that after Duff brought up complaints about the Harp Twins article after his own Final Warning, Bgwhite had agreed to let Lesser be a neutral mediator in determining which things should be kept and which things should be taken out of the article (and added to the article). A list was made. I was fine with that. Keep in mind that a completely independent (and knowledgeable) Wikipedian (a tea house host) gave his opinions on the talk page of the article, mostly supporting my points of view although not all of them. The creator of the article (Crowdsalesmed) also gave her opinions. I gave my own reasons for keeping most of what was in the article but I made some concessions because I am willing to compromise.

However, now I see that apparently Lesser is proposing radical changes to the article based on new arguments of his own, writing the following unilateral solution:

Here's how we're going to resolve this problem. 1. The text of the article will summarize the handful of impeccable sources we have, probably taking up one to three paragraphs. "A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics." (WP:ARTICLE, emphasis added) 2. Material covering videos, live performances and television appearances may appear in dedicated lists and will be presented from a WP:NEUTRAL point of view.

This is NOT what Bgwhite had agreed to, and instead, this has been Lesser's wish from the very beginning. See for yourselves:

User talk:Lesser Cartographies#Some edits on Harp Twins page

"The article is going to be much stronger if we can get it down to a couple of paragraphs."

That was written on September 30.

Lesser has always wanted to reduce this article to a couple of paragraphs, like a stub, and he's showing his intentions again. I am not assuming bad faith. Lesser may be neutral, but this is not what Bgwhite had agreed to. What I see is that Lesser is trying to give the impression that he is listening to the feedback of others while in reality he's proceeding with his own unilateral ideas expressed back on September 30. So I'm asking Bgwhite to demand from Lesser that he stick to the original agreement of adding or removing suggestions from the list that has been created and not proceed with his own ideas. There is no need for radical changes to the article, and although Lesser might see it that way, I assure you both that other competent Wikipedians would disagree.

Besides, regarding SUMMARIZING, the article is already a summary of the topic. Compare the Wikipedia article to the information on their website:

Anyway, I think my demand is fair. Please Bgwhite and Lesser Cartographies, was that not the plan? We had an agreement. Thanks in advance for your replies. Dontreader (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, you did get to part two of the proposal, right? You quoted it above, but it sounds like you didn't read it. 2. Material covering videos, live performances and television appearances may appear in dedicated lists and will be presented from a WP:NEUTRAL point of view. All of the performances, releases and television appearances will now be a part of the article. That's what you wanted, right?. The length of the article will be proportional to what exists in reliable sources. That's what Duff wanted (and what I wanted). Duff (hopefully) and I compromise on excluding most of the existing sources, you compromise on the article length.
If you can suggest a compromise that gets you the article length you want and the sources you want while still being acceptable to Duff, please go ahead and propose it. If the two of you can agree to a different solution I'm more than happy to bow out here and go back to my bibliography articles. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Lesser Cartographies, we had an agreement with Bgwhite. There would be a list of items. I should not have to repeat myself. That was the agreement. Progress was being made regarding which of those items should be kept or removed or added. However, it seems to me that after the Tea House host Technical 13 presented his suggestions, Duff was not expecting this to happen, and then wrote:
"Presented as it is strips it of the reasons they may be issues (the first reply demonstrates this). Was that an unintended consequence or are you thinking I should provide comments for each?"
Well, that is not my problem. Just because things were not going the way Duff wanted them to go, that doesn't give you authority to come up with a new idea. The authority here is Bgwhite, who said you had a great idea. I want to stick to that idea. That was the agreement. No new radical ideas, chopping the article down to one or three paragraphs, or "dedicated lists" (whatever those are). Let Duff work harder on explaining why certain things should be changed/removed from the article and see if he can prove his points based on Wikipedia rules. For example, let him prove beyond any doubt that Mallika Rao is a "blogger" and not a "contributor" (as stated in the Huffington Post, which is the most reliable source we have).
I want to move on with my life. Let's get through the list, adding or removing items according to the best arguments (we were making progress already), and then move on to other things, including the articles you want to work on, and then I can spend time on other things as well. That was the agreement. If you are now against the original terms and you don't want to help us according to the original terms, feel free to forget about this article. It's not the end of the world if it remains in its current state. Dontreader (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Lesser can come up with any idea he wants. I'm sure he has some crazy ideas the would never fly, but hear them out first. Judging by his name, some of those crazy ideas probably involve Lesser Antilles maps. He's an experienced editor who can spot problems or find different ways of doing things. You know the Harp Twins better the Lesser, so you would have better ideas about them. If you don't like his ideas, tell him why. FYI, the other person you reference that edited the talk page, Crowdsalesmed, is Camille Kitt... the Kitt Twin who is smarter and more beautiful. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite, the user Crowdsalesmed cannot possibly be Camille Kitt. That's outrageous. Neither of them has ever mentioned being a Disney fan. Had the user page mentioned Hello Kitty then you'd be onto something:
And rumor has it that no woman on Earth is as beautiful as your mother-in-law. Anyway, maps would be nice. The Greater the better. I think I have made very clear my opinions regarding each item of the list, and indeed Lesser Cartographies is a very experienced editor, so I'll let him do whatever he deems best, since that is the advice you are basically giving me. I really would rather not make any more observations. All I want is world peace. However, if I'm in the slightest bit disappointed with the final outcome, I will sue him. Thanks for your kind reply. Dontreader (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You sir are now banned from Wikipedia with the article delete. You must have sold your soul to utter such vile comment about my mother-in-law. Whatever she gave you wasn't worth being eternally damned. That photo just reinforces how much more stunning Camille is compared to her sister. You need to sue Duff and not Lesser. You can only get maps from Lesser, but Duff has stored alot of beer. Instead of suing anyone, I'll give you my mother-in-law. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite, this Harp Twins page issue has turned me into a full-blown alcoholic, so lots of beer won't do. And being on excellent terms with your lovely mother-in-law is certainly worth it. Besides, every online Christian forum that I've visited has countless people that tell me that I'm already eternally damned. Maybe Camille is the more stunning of the two, but Kennerly is much more talented at making Valentine's Day Hello Kitty houses, and at the end of the day that's what really matters. Dontreader (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

For all my agonizing about policy and compromising, it turns out I was overthinking things. The television citations turned out to be a nonissue once I actually watched them, and most of the cuts I've made are simply a matter of good writing. We're not there yet, but this is starting too look like a concise, neutral, and afd-proof encyclopedia article.

"Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher."

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you of changes per your request. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lesser Cartographies,
Thanks for your work and for your time. Congratulations on finding that doctoral dissertation; it just might have to be tweaked a bit but I haven't analyzed the way you phrased it thoroughly; however, since "noted" is repeated in the same sentence, perhaps "remarked" or a similar word could be used as a substitute.
CBS should be CBS News instead, so please modify that and link it to CBS News. I'm okay with the way you mentioned The Feed Blog. Very good, actually, since it specifies the section of CBS News.
There's a minor issue with the number 57 appearing after the cite 1 twice. Good job on using the dissertation for cite 1, however.
I agree that a problem remains with the acting sources. Anyway, many thanks again for your help. The article is definitely much better already. P.S. Yes, I understood your French quote without resorting to Google Translate! Dontreader (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Done, done, done and rewikified. Other suggestions? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, Lesser Cartographies, for the minor corrections. Please, what is rewikified?
I have a few more observations or suggestions that won't be very time-consuming, I promise:
1. Could you please add their most recent track to the list? See here:
So that would be October 21, 2013 - Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)
2. Notice that in this section Come & Get It (Selena Gomez song)#Radio and release history of Selena Gomez's "Come & Get It" single, an iTunes link was used, and therefore I wonder again if iTunes links are not allowed in the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article, just to support the claims that are being made.
3. The albums section that was recently added by another user is almost certainly correct (although that fan is really in the loop because although the contents are accurate, the name of their second album has not yet been publicly disclosed, so I'm not 100% sure). As far as I know, only the first album is being sold at performance venues, and will not be released online until later this year, so for now perhaps that section should be removed since I doubt that any reliable sources for either album can be found.
4. This is a bit tricky: the Videos section is not the best way to call it. "Tracks" or "Singles" would be better choices. You decide. The reason is that not all of those songs have videos. For example, Danny Boy is on, and they gave away 100 free downloads, but it has never been for sale, and there is no video; therefore, it might not even qualify as a single, but certainly it's a track. Likewise, some songs that do have videos are not on that list. In its current form, that list comprises songs that have been made available for purchase and songs on SoundCloud (which in some cases are available for purchase, and in other cases they are not). So I would suggest "Tracks".
5. The assertion regarding the 11 million views on YouTube is supported by a YouTube link that I gave you, so should that link be added?
Many thanks again for your excellent work. Dontreader (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see that the second CD was announced today on their Facebook page (Harp Fantasy). I was like, man, how did that other editor know this?! Dontreader (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

(Creating a new section so I don't have to scroll so much. I'm lazy that way.)

0. "Wikify" is putting a topic in double square brackets so there's a link in the article you're editing to another article in wikipedia. I had done this for CBS, and it turns out that CBS News has its own article, so I "rewikified" CBS News.

1. Done.

2. This is a reasonable suggestion and you're making a reasonable argument for it, and I respect (and encourage!) that. However, linking to paid sites is just a bad idea. You're editing here because you're passionate about the topic; if we allowed these kinds of links in general, we'd see a lot more people editing because their income depends on it. Quoting Upton Sinclair: ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

The sitewide consensus may be changing wrt iTunes; I don't have a problem with you raising the issue again in a few months if it looks like that's the case.

3. Can you dig up any cites for either that aren't social media? It might be too much to hope for reviews, but it couldn't hurt. As this is uncontroversial I don't think it needs a citation to stay in, but it would be nice to have one.

4. Does "Single Releases" work for you?

5. I thought that was in the nintendo interview. Hmmmm.... that's a problem. Do we have another cite that lists this? I'd rather not link to youtube itself.

Good suggestions—thanks!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lesser Cartographies,
Thanks for these modifications, which I think look fine. I just don't think the Harp Twins are a significant presence on iTunes, unlike Selena Gomez, for example, but I agree to wait and see if the usage of such links becomes more standard in the future.
I could not find any cites (other than their own social media sites) for the upcoming CDs because they are only being sold at event venues (the second album will be sold in a few days, actually, at two venues, at least). I'm sure the albums will be mentioned by independent reliable sources after they become available worldwide.
The only reliable source for the 11 million views is YouTube. I think one or two sources mention 10 million views, but they don't seem that reliable to me. Perhaps since their YouTube channel is an external link, that might be enough.
Thanks for explaining "wikify"! I have actually done that very many times, as well as piping, but I'm still unfamiliar with so many terms. Thanks so much for addressing my observations. Dontreader (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Roar (song)[edit]

You had asked here that I remove the Amazon links from Roar (song). I have now done so (and also removed several itunes links and a link to an Asian equivalent). In your words:

If you can get those Amazon links removed from Katy Perry's song "Roar", then your credibility will be reestablished, and you will cease to look like you are helping Duff have his way.

I have taken one article to GA status and helped in the review process of several others. GA status does not imply an article is immune from further improvement.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Lesser Cartographies. Please give me a day to see exactly what you did there, and then I'll write a reply. I'm too tired tonight. Of course GA status does not mean an article cannot be further improved. Remember that FA status is higher, and yet I've improved a couple of Featured Articles. Dontreader (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I expect I've caused you a certain amount of distress. I apologize for that.
I have a favor ask of you. Please take an article through GA (anything but the harp twins). It's something you can be proud of, and then you'll have one GA and I'll have one GA and hopefully we can interact on a bit more of an equal footing.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies. I have studied your removal of the shop links on the Roar article. I appreciate the gesture very much because it shows consistency, fairness and good will on your part, especially since my only request was for you to apply the same standards to that article that you decided to apply to the Kitt article. Keep in mind that some contributors to the Roar article might be away from Wikipedia at the moment, and when they return you might encounter some problems, but maybe not. In my opinion you made a mistake by providing a mere ID number in order to get rid of a shop link. As far as I know, cites are supposed to directly support content, whereas that ID number only makes sense if the reader copies that number and pastes it to perform a search. I don't think that's the spirit of citations, but I could be wrong. Ironically, a search with that number takes you back to Amazon again, and to at least one other shop, but anyway, I value your efforts, and yes, I see you as a credible person now. Logically, if your edits are changed and a shop shows up again, I expect you to fight to remove it.
Regarding the favor you asked of me, you must understand that Wikipedia means something very different to me from what it means to you. Yes, I'm a fan of the Harp Twins, yet my ability to edit that article has been taken away from me; however, I donated late last year to Wikipedia because I learn a lot from this encyclopedia, and I treasure knowledge. When I read an article, and I see that something is incorrect, I often try to fix it as a goodwill gesture. I'm not here to brag about achievements or to feel important, or to feel respected. Taking an article to GA status can be potentially very problematic and time consuming, with edit wars and whatnot. I simply find pleasure in being kind to others (unless they are trying to f*ck me). If you look at my article edits, you will see a pattern of trying not to upset anyone. I have seen horrible stuff here, like this, but I find no satisfaction in destroying the work of someone who clearly tried to improve an article, even if it was in a very misguided way. I'm totally against music videos being narrated on Wikipedia, unless something notable should be mentioned that is in reliable sources; however, what's the harm of it being there? It's not a life or death matter for the world. And as I said, taking an article to GA status can potentially cause fights. If I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia (which I have done lately thanks to you and Duff), then I don't get some important real-life things done. I had ONE long and nasty debate on a talkpage, and I know that I'm right, but after all that effort, I achieved nothing because atheists and those who think they are "proud scientists" are just as obtuse as evangelical Christians. I will not debate on Wikipedia again, and the GA initiative would most likely lead to debates, potentially edit wars and other things that I don't need. I don't have time or energy for that. And especially not after all the time I have spent defending the Kitt article. Can you imagine how much I could have learned and done on Wikipedia with that time? Thanks again for the Roar song edits, but please do keep an eye on that page. Dontreader (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Don, there's a lot I'd like to respond to here, and thanks for taking the time to craft such a thoughtful response. I will be responding to several points as time allows, which may not be until this weekend. Just wanted to let you know that you've given me a lot to think about, and the thinking has started. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Don. You've got a pretty toxic combination going on between "I know that I'm right" and "I simply find pleasure in being kind to others (unless they are trying to f*ck me)". If fucking with you just means disagreeing with you on something you feel strongly about, then there are tens of thousands of editors here who are ready and willing to fuck with you. You're no longer a new editor. You've established a track record of being abusive when you don't get your way. If you keep this up, you will eventually run into an admin with far less patience than Bgwhite, and you'll be blocked from editing. Much of postsecondary education (formal or informal) is learning that everyone feels they're right, and this feeling is mostly useless when it comes to figuring out a better answer when you're working outside any area of deep expertise. And, as Jesus failed to say: "Love you enemies, unless they're trying to f*uck you." If you're willing to allow the possibility that you might be wrong, and that the people you're interacting with are at least as passionate as you are in their desire to make a great encyclopedia, then you're going to have a much more reliably pleasant time here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies. Thanks for your advice, but you are jumping to conclusions. The only person who has tried to f*ck me here is Duff. There is no toxic combination going on. That debate that I showed you was the only one that got nasty, and my behavior was wrong (although if you look up "Abiogenesis" in dictionaries you will see that my claim is correct), but I've been polite in others, such as this one or this one. You should be more careful before claiming erroneously that I have "established a track record of being abusive" when I don't get my way. Totally false. Besides, you somehow failed to realize that I took the Abiogenesis issue to the talkpage instead of reverting and getting into edit warring, something that Duff loves to do. In fact, Duff has been overruled many times after nominating articles for speedy deletion; what sort of track record does that establish? Duff is a troublemaker who caused a Wikipedian to resign and at least one other to be permanently blocked because she hated him so much. Furthermore, you made quite a bad mistake recently by stating publicly that I brought up your source in bad faith at the Teahouse; how can you be such a rookie at this stage? Finally, I've interacted with quite a few administrators on Wikipedia; clearly the two best that I've found are Bgwhite and Doug Weller. I obeyed Bgwhite when he put a final warning on my page and on Duff's page; Duff recently ignored that final warning, and he even personally attacked Bgwhite by insulting him in an edit description on the Kitt page, so, if you want to make the case that Bgwhite is more patient than other administrators, that would be because he didn't ban or block Duff. Thanks for your interest. Dontreader (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, what have you done?[edit]

Dear Lesser, now tell me, why should I trust in you as a mediator for potential future incidents on the Kitt page? Your credibility has been shattered again, in my opinion. I will get to that in a moment, but let me show you a summary of previous questionable behavior on your part:

  • You scolded Duff here. Yes, you really let him have it, telling him, "Duff: I don't want to work with someone who yells "hypocrite" at the first (or second, or fifth) sign of a misunderstanding. Not only was that uncivil, it was counterproductive: you've removed any incentive for Bgw to come around to your point of view, and you've made me very reluctant to agree with you and be seen as rewarding your behavior. Your actions are making it more difficult for me to remove links that we both agree shouldn't be there. Please don't do that again." So, Lesser, what did you do six hours later? You rewarded his behavior and removed the links. How then can I take you seriously when you are so blatantly insincere? Or worse yet, afraid of Duff, perhaps? You might be admired by some Wikipedians, but clearly you are unfit to be the referee for matters concerning the Kitt page. Oh, but maybe I haven't made a strong enough case against you yet, so let's move on...
  • When I told you on that same page (here) that the 4_Minutes_(Madonna_song) article is a Featured Article that has several iTunes and Amazon links in the Release history section to support content, you wrote, "As to the Madonna article, this site is a far more reliable (and complete) source than amazon." When I indicated that your source was not reliable, and I asked you to admit your mistake, you instead proceeded to imply that I was a Neanderthal, incapable of understanding something so obvious to experienced Wikipedians; indeed, you wrote, "Perhaps I should spell this out a bit more. When your blog is cited as an authority in academic literature, we as editors may assume the blog is both recognized and an authority." Fascinating, Lesser! So I asked at the Teahouse whether that source was reliable or not, and you stalked me there, you said I wasn't providing the full context, you made your case, and still the host told us that your source was not reliable, but he asked you to provide more information about it, and instead you publicly stated that I had asked the question in bad faith! Certainly not one of the highlights of your career, Lesser! How am I supposed to trust in a mediator who cannot admit to me that he's wrong, and does something so uncivil besides?
  • Then comes the new stuff, which is equally exciting! You decided that you could sneak in that horrid source into the 4_Minutes_(Madonna_song) article to lay the ground for eliminating the shop links, but IndianBio reverted your edit 5 (five) minutes later! You really thought that getting rid of shop links was that easy just because you got lucky on Roar?! And when IndianBio confronted you with that super source of yours on the talk page of that article, you wrote, "As to the reliability of MadonnaCollector: to a first approximation, it isn't reliable. It has been cited in one academic work, and if I can find some more support for the site author's expertise I could see making an argument that the reliability was sufficient for uncontroversial facts. I'm not able to make that argument yet, so I won't be using MadonnaCollector except as a listing of artifacts that can stand on their own." How eloquent, Lesser! The way you say bullsh*t is priceless! You cannot simply admit that you are ever wrong! But the more important fact is that your bulletproof link remains gone, and the 7 (seven) shop links are still there. What have you done, Lesser? What am I supposed to think? That when you encountered a seasoned Wikipedian you gave up? Or do you now believe that shop links are admissible? Either way, I want the shop links back in the Kitt article, at least until/unless you finish the job you began on 4 Minutes, no matter how much you want to make Duff happy. If you prefer justice and fairness over hypocrisy, you will do that. If not, it's just another reason to validly claim that you are unqualified to be the mediator of any potential future incidents on the Kitt article. And trust me. Duff WILL be back, and there are plenty of qualified Wikipedians that can mediate in a balanced manner when that happens. Have a wonderful day. Dontreader (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, it has been a wonderful day (one of several recently, in fact).
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Here's the discussion:

Bgwhite, I've been editing other articles but at a slow pace because ANI took up lots of my time, doing all the research for my defense and to turn defense into attack; however, my request to have Duff banned from editing the article was totally ignored. I have no idea if ANI is always so ineffective or not. Would I gain anything by stating my case there for Duff to be banned from editing that article, or would that only make things worse? Thanks in advance. P.S. This edit was very meaningful and required research to correct the problem (the link was not working properly, and it caused a bot to post a template on the talk page, which I then removed). Dontreader (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI is a cesspool. One has to understand what it is and isn't and nobody knows it completely. Duff went there, for lack of a better word, to bitch. People saw that and didn't want to touch the discussion with a ten foot pole. He wanted you banned for page ownership and you had not edited the page for six or so months. You want him banned, but he has only edited twice in the past six or so months. Nobody is getting banned for *not* editing the page. Duff hates me and berates me because I've been nice to you. However, Duff did have an excellent point and that was your "temper". While Duff only did it a few times and you did it alot, neither one of you are innocent. Berating Lesser was totally uncalled for. You can never do that again. Period. Even if Lesser was in the wrong, that was no way to treat him or anybody else. I would totally forget the Kitt article for awhile. It is toxic for you. If I was in your shoes, my blood pressure would rise just thinking about the article. The best part of all this is I now have two new Wiki friends, you and Lesser. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Bgwhite for your reply and for your advice. The key difference that I see between Duff and myself regarding a ban is that I have not only refrained from editing that article, but I have promised to continue with that agreement, whereas Duff has defied your warning and has implied that he could come back at any moment to cause trouble with the article.
Yes, you have been nice to me, and I appreciate that, but at least I was smart enough to be nice to you from the beginning since you are an administrator. In fact, before this nightmare began, you fixed a couple of links on the article with AWB but one of them did not need fixing, so I wrote to you on your talk page very politely about the situation, and thanked you, even though back then I did not know that you were an administrator. It was a courtesy gesture. But yes, once I realized that you were an administrator, I was very careful and respectful while writing to you; however, you immediately EARNED my respect for many reasons, and I knew that I could trust you. But what really upsets me is that Duff and Lesser have the impression that you are not neutral, and that instead you tend to take my side when it comes to matters related to the article. That's ridiculous. I challenge Lesser and Duff to find out exactly how many requests I have made on your talk page, and how many you have declined or accepted. You have said NO to my suggestions enough times for me to have felt that you would reject my petition to revert clear vandalism. Being nice to me is not the same as being biased, and at least Lesser must know that since he's not an idiot (not that Duff is an idiot, but Lesser is very smart, although not as smart as he thinks, obviously).
Yes, what I did to Lesser was wrong but I saw no other way to deal with him; however, since you are clearly telling me that I must not do that ever again with Lesser or anyone else on Wikipedia, I won't. The sad thing is that Lesser has insulted me repeatedly while being civil; he has mastered that art; he even indicated at ANI (as I pointed out to you) that he is plotting against me, while being civil. Lesser has every intention of coming back to cause trouble with Duff. I cannot reveal my tactics to you for whenever Duff and Lesser return since they might see this, but I will be civil towards them (and towards everybody else, which honestly has been my style with practically everyone here - I even thank editors who take the time to edit not only the Kitt article but others that I contribute to, because my heart is filled with love and joy!). I'll stay away from the Kitt article, as you recommended, at least for a few months. Thanks again for your time and help. Dontreader (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So long Kitt twins, say hello to the winner twins.[edit]

@Lesser Cartographies: The Kitt twins have competition now. Say hello to the Winner Twins. With a name like Winner, how can you not like them. They are winners!! I think they are 18 years old. They don't play wimpy harps, they play with guns and more guns. Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, this is the most disturbing news I have received in years. I refuse to accept this situation. The Harp Twins must not have Twins competition on Wikipedia, plus I think it's against the rules somewhere. I will nominate that Winner Twins article for deletion at once... oh, somebody beat me to it. Thank God. And look, Bgwhite, maybe the Harp Twins are not as pretty or as hot as the Winner Twins, but they do play with guns too. Dontreader (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know they were Siamese twins, joined at the hip. So, Camille got all the cute genes, Kennerly got the appendix and they both share hip bone? It's obvious to anyone why Kennerly got fired and Camille got a promotion. I will have to admit that Camille is the cutest and prettiest person on Wikipedia. It's just that Kennerly drags the twin quotient down so low that the Winner Twins might be better. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I thought I had seen these hideous words of yours in a frightful nightmare several weeks ago, but sadly I wasn't dreaming. You've gone way too far this time. I concede that Kennerly's hair is grimy while Camille's is shiny; Camille is so fit, whereas Kennerly has let herself go quite a bit. Indeed, while Camille is thin, Kennerly has a double chin. Camille is charming, and Kennerly is alarming. But even so, you should learn to celebrate diversity. I have shown Kennerly what you wrote, and she's all sad now, and this has also made her sister become deeply depressed. Look. Shame on you, Bgwhite! Dontreader (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you kids.... what makes my heart go pitter-pat is someone with tenure and a finite Erdős number..... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Hey, another user and I are trying to open a DRN so we can remove or fix the topic sentence of that page. I have seen your attempts earlier on, and I hope you would be willing to help us once more. This really needs to go through. If you are interested, just leave a reply on my page, or here. Thanks, ReallyFat B. (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just been and seen your post on my page. Thank you very much for the help, and we should be able to correct this in the DRN I'm filing. Be sure to comment there, and hopefully we can clear up the terrible mess those editors have made of that page. ReallyFat B. (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The DRN is up! Please make a good strong case of this, this really needs to go through. ReallyFat B. (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

please use "minor edit" check box[edit]

could you please refrain from writing the lengthy but really trivial "edit summary"? there is a simple check box called "this is a minor edit" with no editing summary required, and if you can, edit all those things at once, every page you showed interest in is flooded with your edit notes one after one, you may not realize but no one came to the history page to check who is giving a grammar lecture or add a wikilink, and certainly not to see the same person take up the entire history page for those minor edits, so please be considerate, thank you! (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC), sorry, but you are wrong. One is supposed to give an edit summary for every edit, even minor ones. Dontreader is also editing every 10 to 30 minutes, not 10 edits in 5 minutes. Kind of hard to edit "all at once" when spread out over such a long time period. Dontreader isn't doing anything wrong and I wish more editors were like him when it comes to edit summaries. Bgwhite (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. If you look carefully you will find that some of my edits are marked as minor, but I appreciate the link you gave me since I now realize that many more of my edits should have been marked as minor. I will certainly take this into account from now on; however, you must understand that there is no exact definition for a minor edit, and therefore this matter can be subjective. For example, an edit that might seem minor to you might seem major to someone else, so if I'm not sure then I will refrain from marking an edit as minor. Now, regarding my edit summaries, could you please explain why lengthy edit summaries bother you? This has no impact on watchlists, unlike the major edits. Let me remind you that ALL edits should have summaries, as you can see here, and I myself really appreciate it when other editors clearly indicate the changes that they make because then I don't have to compare revisions. As a matter of fact, my general policy is to explain my edits as well as possible out of courtesy since some editors are sensitive and if I change what they do I want them to fully understand my decisions. Concerning making more edits at once, I try, but then I end up forgetting some of the corrections I wanted to make. I can't know beforehand if I will run into a string of things I believe should be edited or not; instead, I generally spot something and I change it. You can change the number of edits you see per page, so that mine won't occupy the entire page history. Thanks again for stopping by, and I will certainly use the minor edit option much more often, but even in those cases I will include edit summaries, as dictated by Wikipedia policy. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, many thanks for your unexpected message. Always great to see you! Dontreader (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so very much i already aske the photographer of PPS to log in and upload his official photos so the photos problem will be fixed soon , i asked the rappers equipe to write a better text and i m waiting for it thank you again for allLila Karakas (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless editing to the Mandy Moore article, I present you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Keep it up! 4TheWynne (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 4TheWynne, for appreciating my efforts on that article! I hope to take it to Good Article status someday. That's the first barnstar I've ever received, and it's my favorite! Thanks again, mate! :) Dontreader (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: your 2-letter edit[edit]

hi; Do we have a source for "by the warship"? I read only that the bodies were on the warship. It could have been some unrelated helicopter delivering bodies to the warship. (That's why I carefully chose that word.) And should we report all previous (well-founded) conjectures, even by principals, that turned out to be right? :) Layzeeboi (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Layzeeboi,
Regarding the warship, I was obviously careless when I made the assumption that the ship recovered the bodies. As you said, it wasn't necessarily that way. Please change what I did, and thanks for writing to me about that.
Concerning the early conjectures, such as the plane being at the bottom of the sea, I'm not an expert, but I think they should be kept, not only because they turned out to be true, but also to document the tragedy properly because early speculations by authorities are part of the history of catastrophic events, in my opinion. Many thanks again for contacting me. Dontreader (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I see your latter point. Perhaps this conjecture would better appear in a later section such as "Recovery effort", rather than the Intro? Please proceed if you agree. Thanks for your reply. Layzeeboi (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Layzeeboi, it seems as if what you suggested was done at some point since I see conjectures in a "Recovery effort" section. I think it looks good. I suppose the Lead section will be expanded once there is more information. Thanks for your contributions to the article, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Redhead Express[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Redhead Express requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Stormy Atmosphere[edit]

Dear Dontreader,

Following our talk few days ago, I made my changes but still would like you to check the article before I submit it.

Thanks a lot in advance! Silverray123 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dontreader,

I contacted the Fireworks magazine again, and they sent me an actual PDF of the band review from 2009 magazine, where the band and the first album Colorblind are mentioned, alongside with many other bands, including famous ones!
That Fireworks review definitely can solve any notability problem... Unfortunately, it cannot be found online, just as a PDF file, but I don't know how to add it properly to my article, so that's where I need your assistance: I had already added a piece of this review in my article in the past (added it as a picture actually, because didn't know how to put it otherwise) and it was, of course, removed by one of the moderators. LOL
So I believe this is not the way... Please help :) Thank you in advance, Silverray123 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)