:We are speaking of, for example, a group of pages around a single issue about which, I understand, Oregonians have a strongly negative POV. The pages are linked together in rather flimsy ways. It is alleged that living person A plotted to kill living person B, and this is ultimately based upon a report or article of which no trace exists on the net, with no details of any publication, on a non-related subject, by an Oregonian lawyer, without evidence of reliability, authority or notability. I asked Cirt to supply additional details for verification of this whole house of cards (all Cirt's own work). Since the case went to trial and got a conviction, this ought to be easy. I am not saying it is not true. Just that it is an extraordinary BLP claim that serves as a bridge between several strongly POV articles. That's all. A year later I am still being attacked for requesting this. This is unacceptable. Still - cheers. [[User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] ([[User talk:Redheylin#top|talk]]) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
:We are speaking of, for example, a group of pages around a single issue about which, I understand, Oregonians have a strongly negative POV. The pages are linked together in rather flimsy ways. It is alleged that living person A plotted to kill living person B, and this is ultimately based upon a report or article of which no trace exists on the net, with no details of any publication, on a non-related subject, by an Oregonian lawyer, without evidence of reliability, authority or notability. I asked Cirt to supply additional details for verification of this whole house of cards (all Cirt's own work). Since the case went to trial and got a conviction, this ought to be easy. I am not saying it is not true. Just that it is an extraordinary BLP claim that serves as a bridge between several strongly POV articles. That's all. A year later I am still being attacked for requesting this. This is unacceptable. Still - cheers. [[User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] ([[User talk:Redheylin#top|talk]]) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
::Well, Wikipedia works by consensus. So other than being patient and discussing it with the other party or parties involved, your best bet is to bring in additional input from other editors using the [[wp:content noticeboard]], the law project discussion page, and the BLP noticeboard. I wouldn't do all three at once, but how about a short note requesting input from other editors on the appropriate articles at the Wikipedia Content Noticeboard? As neutrally as possible, state what the dispute is or what your concerns are, and ask if others will take a look and see what they think. And in the meantime, if you have other article interests, I think getting a breather would be a good thing. Give other editors a chance to have a look. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Kilnerfig.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Kilnerfig.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Image copyright problem with Image:Croftpyramidcb.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Croftpyramidcb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
REGARDING THE PAGE ON SAMBANDAR
MR.REDHEYLIN, THERE ARE A PLETORA OF MATERIAL FOR MY WRITINGS AND THE FACTS ARE ACCURATE AND TRUE. CITATIONS NOT REQUIRED.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Kilnerfig.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Driesch.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi, I really think that one surname needs to be chosen. The other can be a redirect, as it was before. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HEllo! Funny you should happen along. My experience is that the robot will sort this out in a few hours. I can help recognition by altering the page title a few more times. All the versions get linked and eventually the redirects get automated. Please do check in a day or two; I am just getting the page sorted out! I appreciate the feedback and of course please join in. Redheylin (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What it also does though, is make the page history much more difficult to read. You can always create redirects directly from any other names or potential mis-spellings. Kevin (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, you've been editing much longer than I, and I'd appreciate your advice on this - ie "how?" The thing is; I followed the spelling I found in the text as I usually do, but today I looked at a couple of books I have and I found no "Gurwitsch" but only "Gurvich" and also, gawd'elpus, "Gurvitch". I am going to assess the relative importance of these via Google, but I can imagine us ending up with something like "A.G.Gurvitch (Gurvich, Gurwitsch)". This being the case, your advice on procedure would be valuable. Redheylin (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Wikipedia:Your_first_article#How_to_create_a_page, and type in the name you would like to redirect to the main article. In this case you could type A.G.Gurvitch. If the search finds no existing page then click the red create this page button and a new page is opened for editing. To make this a redirect page, click to #R button above the edit window, and then a space and a link to the main article, for example #REDIRECT [[Alexander Gurwitsch]]. Make sure that the redirect you are creating is a useful miss-spelling or alternate title. The redirect Alexander Gurwitsch or Gurvich probably isn't in this case. See Wikipedia:Redirect for the whole guideline on redirects.
Regarding which name is more appropriate, I would go with either Alexander Gurwitsch or Alexander Gurvich. For a non-controvertial topic I would go with whichever you feel is the more common usage. I think you've picked the first anyway.
Image copyright problem with Image:Anthropomorph.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Anthropomorph.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidBoadella.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Kevin (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not problem at all. Fixing those is actually my favorite kind of admin work, but we should try not to make cut-and-paste moves. Cool HandLuke04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Image:Croftpyramidcb.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.
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 [[ Talk:Image:Croftpyramidcb.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orgone edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on orgone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCellTalk21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie bracelets
Now that ionized bracelet has been restored, could I get your comments its new layout? I'd to resolve our {{pov}} dispute so the template can be removed from the header. –Gunslinger47
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This block is unjustified. I am engaged in non-controversial editing work elsewhere. Some time ago an editor entered a disputed facts tag on a page I was working on, orgone. I repeatedly asked the editor to alert me to the actual facts disputed - the editor failed to discuss but consistently reverted. The editor insisted that an improperly sourced "pseudoscience" clause must remain in the lead and again constantly reverted without discussion. User removed references and then disputed statements. Finally the editor placed an RtF and appealed to the Fringe Theories noticeboard. He has not been able to convince anyone that it is a "fact" that orgone is pseudo-science - the contention is that this is so obvious it requires no source. Today, after some time, I removed this tag to the talk page a second time. Once again, the editor repeatedly reverted and refused to take note of the talk page. I have sought the help of several other editors in fixing this dispute. I believe I am right to request better guidance as to the correct way in dealing with this type of persistent, single-issue destructive tag-team disruption. I requested guidance a few days ago from vassyana. but my message was removed from her talk page by another user. Redheylin (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If I may offer some well-meaning advice: You were in the right, yet you were still blocked. The details of your dispute never mattered though, only the way you went about it. Have patience next time; articles don't need to be perfect.
You need to bide your time while reaching out for consensus. 3RR is the easiest restriction to work around. If you know you're right, at least one other editor should be willing to help you revert. You're allowed to call in other editors to help resolve such disputes. In fact, I encourage you to do so.* (*not for use during straw polls) –Gunslinger4700:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaula
I just noticed your nice work on the Kaula article. Thanks for steering it away from the Kashmir Shaivism perspective, which is actually a different thing and different word. Good work. -Vritti (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop peppering various pages around wikipedia with not so veiled accusations and attacks on myself as an editor. Several times my frustration level reached the point where I cross the line of civility. But I have attempted to be much more careful about what I have chosen to say and would appreciate it if you were to return the favor. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must just be another misreading like the one just before about skepdic. I am just saying, I am crazy like Reich. Better get back and answer those points! I called in the admin. Redheylin (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no points left to answer, perhaps once your request is closed you will come back and actually participate coherently, or perhaps orgone is not a page you should be editing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my advice is to take a break, have a beer, chillax for a bit. nothing is going to be served by getting up in arms, and you'll have a fresher perspective after a good night's sleep. give me a chance to read over the arguments that have been made and see what sense I can make of them, and then we'll go back tomorrow and try some cool-headed discussion to see how things fall out. I think we can work out something reasonable.
remember (and yes, I know this is going to sound really cheesy) the time you need to believe in Good Faith editing the most is when you're really pissed off. don't flip over any of it; it's not personal, it's not worth the trouble, and it's not going to get you anywhere. --Ludwigs206:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am enjoying it! Not at all pissed off, but I appreciate the advice and the attention to the matter as always. I will not explain things here, you can figure it out anyhow. Redheylin (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Hsburr.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thank you for uploading Image:Kammerer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
You should have raised the matter on the talk pages before moving these. The latin title is certainly the correct name for the article about the Latin work. I shall raise the matter on the talk page, but will ask for the move to be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any help
Hello Redheylin, Please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be helpful in many questions especially in relation to Hinduism or indic studies. Please also have a look at copyvio problems of some of your uploads, you may be tagged with {{subst:idw-cp|Image:Imagevio}} - I suggest using a different image, with public domain copyright... Wikidās ॐ20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kamadeva 1.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamadeva 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Thanks for uploading Image:Kamadeva 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it but I really think the "Somali clan" article should have been merged and redirected to "Somali people." I'm basing my reasoning thusly: (Somali clan = Somali people) but (People in Somalia != Somali people). If you want to weigh in on another discussion (and I understand if you don't) I've left comments at Talk:Demographics of Somalia#Article merge. I'll also leave a note for CBW. -- Gyrofrog (talk)15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rating of Kaula article
Hi Redheylin. I saw your in depth edits of article Kaula and I was wandering if it is ready for a rating reevaluation. If not, what can be done to raise its level? I am the author of the original form of this article, when it was 44K long. Visarga (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me, and sorry you had not approved the edits before. The article will be further improved by use of scholarly sources, especially historical and with "all India" approach. A while ago I received the following - you might contact Vritti. Please leave any detailed comments on the Kaula talk page. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your nice work on the Kaula article. Thanks for steering it away from the Kashmir Shaivism perspective, which is actually a different thing and different word. Good work. -Vritti (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I just removed this article from the 3O list, and am notifying you as you requested. The main reason I removed it is that there's at least four editors there, and 3O is largely for disagreements between two editors. That article looks like it has enough issues as it is. I can't find the arbitration request you mentioned, though. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rhydfelen
Thanks for your help with Rhydfelen. I still have a concern however as the person who wanted to keep Ian Jindal but refused to take any part in the discussion has just made changes to you edits. Harris578 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Vishnuteertha.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Popp.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Pweiss.JPG
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Pweiss.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Thanks for uploading Image:Vishnuteertha.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vishnuteertha.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shivom.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:787457365 l.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:787457365 l.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Image permission problem with Image:787457365 l.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:787457365 l.jpg, which you've sourced to myspace. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gurwitsch.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rupertriedl.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
It will take me a while to find the sources. However, consider this: No source talking about the Islamic convert discusses the Nayanar saint. Also, the legend of the Saint says he "went to heaven" with Cuntarar (euphemism for dying, I assume). Would a man really be reborn to convert to Islam? Or would an Islamic convert be reborn as an "idolater"? No source provided on either page discusses the other theory, so lets assume they are separate people and continue the narratives from there. Anyway I request you give me a bit of time to sort this out, because it looks like a few minor revert scuffles ensued because of the ambiguous nature of the name.Pectoretalk02:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided on the page of the convert do not make any mention of Saivism. The two narratives are disparate. Do you really believe what you are saying? Here is a quote I found.
EB 1911 states
"The maharaja of Travancore claims descent from Cheraman Perumal, the last Hindu king of a united malabar, whose date is variously given from AD 378 to AD 825"
(note that much of that time is before Prophet Mohammed was born)
this link gives a bit of credence to your theory, but notes that the Kaaba was a Hindu pilgrimage site in those days until the organization of Islamic power. Either way it is better to keep the page as disparate narratives because they really are not mutually compatible. No man that died a Saivite converted to Islam, and no Islamic convert went to heaven as a Saivite. The deeds of the saint, as recounted in devotional works, do not match the reign of the convert.Pectoretalk21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "personal views" arent coming into play here, only research. I have provided sources, with quotations (which you have failed to provide) that state the narratives are disparate (ie. neither discusses the other possibility). Where are your sources? Line them up, with quotes.Pectoretalk20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There may be another theory that the name is common. Blood Weddings: The Knanaya Christians of Kerala by Richard Sviderski contains the possibility the saint's name was "Rajasekhara Varma" whose name became "Cheraman Perumal" when he ascended the throne.Pectoretalk21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at it, the Islamic saint is identified with "Bhaskara Ravi Varma" by some islamic sources ("Marraige and kinship in an island society" by Abdul Rahman Kutty), and Sthanu Ravi Gupta by one source I think. Rajasekhara Varma is the name of the Hindu saint. The confusion is because Cheraman Perumal is a title, not a given name (meaning "Great man of the Chera"), as noted by Nayar in 1974 meaning there may be many kings (not just our two) with the name "Cheraman Perumal".Pectoretalk21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the William Logan book "Malabar Manual" and I found no mention of Sundaramurti Nayanar in there. I looked up Siva in the relevant section, and it discussed Parasurama and Adi Sankara but no mention of Cuntarar or the Hindu Cheraman Perumal. With even your source not mentioning both theories, they are probably different people with the same title. The real issue is to figure out how many we have. There are at least 4 that I have read about.Pectoretalk04:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think tembûr should have been redirected to tanbur, and I have reverted the redirect. I realize the tembûr is fairly short but the information is not given in the larger tanbur article. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk)23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the name looked familiar! Anyway, regarding tanbur/tembur etc.: FWIW some time ago, there was a fair amount of drama surrounding the tembur article, check out the lower half of Talk:Tanbur (Persian) if you are curious. Cheers, -- Gyrofrog (talk)23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can all work together to do good things at Wikipedia. Page moves, however, should be carefully researched, considered, and discussed before implementing. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HI, I see that the categories are a mess: forms is a subcat of form, but genre a subcat of forms... Scherzo doesn't really quite fit with the other things in Category:Formal sections in music analysis, where the sections are not self contained (as the scherzi of Chopin are, for example). The question is where the discussion of cleaning this all up belongs! How about the parent Category talk:Musical form? Or is there already one that I've missed? Sparafucil (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please ve advised that I reverted the edits you made to the two articles mentioned above. You removed the cats that were appropriate for those articles. Please refrain from making those types of edits in the future. The cats that were listed were perfectly in line with the articles and could in fact be used to expand and search for further information about said articles. Thank you Canyouhearmenow11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reply transplanted from Sssoul's talk page): Thanks for your note. The establishment of a usable tree categorisation of musical genres requires that the top of that tree be not used to list subgenres and specific styles, but that these be listed only by the means of classification suggested on that page. For example, gospel music is an Afro/North American Christian vocal-instrumental style of the 20thC and can be found under all these headings, whereas clearly Southern gospel is a subcat of gospel. These changes are not intended as an evaluation of any form of music but rather to achieve (what has sadly failed in the past) a logical system that will encourage readers to discover each genre - that is; to encourage discovery of any particular page. Clearly there is room for discussion, but there is also a need for categorisation of hundreds of pages(a considerable job that has produced only three enquiries including your own from some 500 corrected categorisations). I hope you will see the desirability of this effort. Please see [1] Thanks Redheylin (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for replying but this discussion needs to take place on the talk pages of the articles in question. the assertion that pop music and rock and roll are "subgenres" rather than genres seems quite dubious/contentious. Sssoul (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(transplanted again from Sssoul's talk page): Hello again - it is not being asserted that all kinds of music are subgenres, but rather that all musical genres be subcategorised according to wiki guidelines - please see the page I cited on my first answer here. Note that the rocknroll page defines a North American popular 20thC genre.Redheylin (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again: your reasons for removing articles from categories need to be on the talk pages of the articles in question where all the interested editors can see it. or if you want to hold the discussion here on your talk page, please put links to this discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question, so that interested editors can find it. please don't reply on my talk page - as you see i am a fan of keeping conversations intact on one page. Sssoul (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent - transplanted again from Sssoul's talk page): I am answering [on your talk page] so you will be aware of my answers. The question is not of WHICH musical genres be classified simply as that - none of them should be, otherwise all of them must be, which will give a list of thousands. Such a large list is now being sorted. Hence, the question is not one that concerns each genre and page specifically. Rather, to keep all discussion together the best place will be on the category page itself. Certainly, the subcat 20thC genres needs to be expanded. But please do refer to wiki guidelines on subcats first. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i will be aware of any replies you make here on your own talk page. please stop using my talk page for half of this dialog. please provide (here, and/or on talk pages of articles you're recategorizing, and/or in your edit summaries) a link to the specific discussion that establishes consensus for music genres to be recategorized. Sssoul (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redheylin! Thank you for picking up the Steven Toushin article in the midst of a COI debate. I appreciate the work that you did to make it more balanced. However, I am concerned that the current version makes no mention of the Miller Test, which was the applicable law that governed Toushin's predicament. Toushin is a notable figure in large part because the U.S. Government was unable to convict him for obscenity despite the fact that his movies were extremely disturbing. It seems that his attorneys convinced the jury that extreme violence is not punishable under Miller. As the wiki article now stands, there is no mention of the Miller test. Can you take a look at the article? You did a good job balancing out the article, but there needs to be more discussion of Miller to understand the defense and its social relevance. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CfD process
I notice that you're trying to nominate categories for deletion. However, the procedure you're using is not correct. Please study the directions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion before attempting any more nominations.
In the case of categories that have no pages in them, there's a simpler process, called speedy deletion that can be used. Empty categories qualify for speedy deletion under criterion C1.
I deleted the Bulgarian section in Tamburica article because it's not a Central (or Eastern) European tambura (tamburica) it's a South Europeantamboura as I know. And your map is correct but you cut off some territory on North.
I would suggest you may create a new article for the Bulgarian tamboura.
Hi. I noticed that categories have been removed from lot of articles. In most cases you have kept only 1 category. I do not see a clear pattern or rationale for this action.
Thanks for uploading File:Roux.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Hello - the category "music by genre" is intended to catalogue music by genre, confusing though that may be - it is a diffusible category that contains subcats such as "composers by genre", "record labels by genre" etc. There is another category "music genres", that contains, well, music genres, this time sorted into "popular, folk, classical" etc. - it is again diffusible. Please note that by reverting useful added cats are being lost. For instance, Psychedelic music is a sociologically determined genre since it depends upon a drug rather than (or as well as) a broader musical style (of which it is therefore a sub-genre). Please add all relevant genres and contact me with specific queries, but it would be helpful NOT to revert, since many hundreds of pages have been reclassified (with only a handful of queries). Genres are not being hidden or downgraded but sorted. There has been confusion between genre style and form. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only one, but there have been few. The problem above yours, though, was one of over-categorisation, whereas in this case it is a wrong category. These things do get sorted out. We can talk about specific pages.... Redheylin (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not discuss this on two talk pages. I originally posted to yours (in another section above my current one) so we will continue it there. What you are doing is both a form of overcategorization and duplicating poorly named categories. Please explain why we need a Music genres and a Music by genres category, when they mean the exact same thing? If you intend them to mean different things, then you need to discuss this with the related projects or explain your plan. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry. Tell me there if you would like to be informed of any answer. The point you raise, though - you may be right that the system is confusing. I am trying to sort it out and, if you want to be involved in music editing that is great. The music genres project has become defunct - probably due to problems and disagreements! We can even move in there if you want! BTW that S Indian bloke before you is a v intelligent man. Redheylin (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difficulty - I am working from the top-down and I can see that various subgenres are classed in different ways. For example, you want ska classed as "music by genre", but someone else has reverted rock and roll to be part of "music genres". Clearly they should be in the same place. I thought about why header categories had been introduced and I also note as I pass by various genres that there are other ways of classing them. For example, "music by genre" is there for classifying categories by genre. So there is a reggae category: it contains a subcat "subgenres of reggae" and there is a place for "subgenres by genre". There is "reggae record labels" and that goes in "record labels by genre" - and this is all part of "music genres", which is part of "music". And there are thousands of genre music articles, I cannot do everything at the same time. To do this in every department, enthusiasts of that department are needed, though I intend to make a second round - there are slight differences in different genres. I will be glad to help, but it is best to clear the hundreds of articles in top cats into the subcats provided, following the plan that has already been made by and large. By and large few people are responding - you can see my contributions - if you want to begin to revert them all - but I tink you are not so crazy, mister, to want rock and roll over there and reggae over here? Trouble is, it is hard to see all the tree, and completely impossible for me so far to remember it all. Some of these names you have to really think about it - modular, yes. Redheylin (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that you think you are working "top-down", but what do you consider the top? Remember, categories are used for more than just classification, and they can be used horizontally. When you say you are following a "plan", I don't know what you mean. Also, I don't "want" anything, other than topics and categories to be accessible. Why shouldn't Ska be a member of music by genre? You answer, because someone has added it to "music genres"? You need to deal with the problem before implementing a solution. So, please explain what the problem is, as you see it. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic principle is - look at the genre definition. If it says "tango is a twentieth century Argentinian dance music", then it belongs under 20th C, under Argentinian and under Dance music. It may turn out it has some non-musical subculture referents also. These are the categories, there is no need to class straight under "music". That's the top of the tree. The modules mostly already exist. Redheylin (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be very specific so I can address the problem. I don't know if you are referring to Category:Tango or Tango music, but it looks like someone moved all of the categories out of Tango music and placed them on Category:Tango. This may not be best practice. An article can appear in the same categories as categories themselves. This facilitates navigational browsing by category in the article. It all depends on how you use a category. You, like other editors, are trying to force the category system to display in only one way, and I don't believe that is accurate. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any other way to make it display please say so - as I say, I can see that reggae and ska articles can be usefully further categorised - and psychedelic and the rest. And I can also see that other forms of popular music have been categorised in divergent and contradictory ways. As far as I go, music is the topmost. If you take any music genre category and follow up its own categories at the bottom, after three or four clicks you will end up at category:music, probably by several different routes. The way up must not be destroyed. So if "tango music" becomes part of category:tango, then that category must lead to "music" in at least one way. the tree is already in place but lots of articles have been added. Of course "tango" must also lead to dance, argentina - as described. I have just decoded the plan that someone else put in place and spent weeks following it with a few refinements. And there are a few controversies - what is a form, a genre, a style? But I promise you I have every respect for every musical genre and would like it all to be easy to find and understand. Redheylin (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have mentioned the "plan". I'm assuming you are referring to your plan for the categories and not Foucault's Pendulum, so for the second time, could you please explain the "plan" to me? If you keep speaking of the plan without telling me what it is, I can't discuss it. This is part of the problem, and this is why other editors keep coming here with concerns. Explain the plan, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the heirarchic tree under "music", particularly under "music genres". Music by genre is a subcategory of that. You will have to climb around in it, and in quite a few places, like "Tango", you will find yourself in a hall of mirrors. It might be good if you'd contact the editors of Southern gospel, Rock and Roll too, because you can see that it does not make sense to classify those there and ska and psychedelic somewhere else. The others are more right though - there are other ways of using "music by genre", like I said. Redheylin (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and vice versa. Music by genre is a subcat of music genres. There may well be further inconsistencies in cats, but basically, as I say, music genres themselves belong in "music genres", but things like "reggae record companies" and "reggae artists" etc, belong in subcats of "music by genre". Redheylin (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the overcategorization. Jazz and rock should not be buried in "popular music", but should also be accessible at higher levels. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you were absolutely right about Southern gospel and Rock and Roll, so I've removed Category:Music genres from both articles and I've left messages on their respective talk pages inviting others to discuss the issue here. Again, the problem still hasn't been addressed. So far, I see a poorly named category, no detailed instructions on the category page telling people not to use it this way, and finally, no master category of music categories, which is why other editors keep adding it. To solve this issue, those questions should be addressed in some way. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of music genres - there is dhrupad, czardas, ballet, tango, rembetika, rai..... of course each one has fans here who do not want their favourite genre to be counted as less than some other genre. But there is no need to have them all in the top category because there is a Category:Lists of music genres, and there can be others. The "over-categorisation" is simply to categorise all styles by their defining features as I explained with Tango. SO I am using the system that is in place: if you want to change it, that is not up to me, though I am interested in your thoughts. Redheylin (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable. I don't think Jazz is classified purely as a "popular music" so it should not just be found in that one category, and people looking for Jazz are not going to look in popular music. Frankly, a "popular music" category isn't very informative or helpful by itself. You might try to familiarize with similar issues to see how it works across the board. For example, in the field of film, Action films appear in three categories: Action films, Action (genre), and Film genres, allowing three entry points to the topic. The category on Action films, goes straight to the top, and is classified in Films by genre and Action (genre). This is normal, and you seem to be rebelling against this type of convention. Unlike the film categories, the Music genres category has been cleaned out and no longer reflects this form of basic categorization. So, I don't think you are using the system in place. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, music by genre belongs to categories by genre, and that means it should only contain categories. Yes, Jazz should also be classed according to 20th C, Afro-American, anything else you can think of horizontally. Redheylin (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I am simply cleaning out the top layers. That is why it is now easy to see the inconsistencies. A month ago, when there were hundreds of articles in those layers, it was hard to figure anything out. Music by genre belongs to music genre which belongs to music at present. Redheylin (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music genres should be a member of Music theory, and Music by genre should be a member of Music. This is true for all X genres and Y by genre articles. Someone screwed the music categories up. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. If you are interested in getting involved with recategorisation (ie, Name changing) we can approach the relevant admins. There's certainly some room for logical thought at the top, and there should be an easier way of seeing the layout from the bottom. Someone laid it out into classical, traditional and popular (ie recorded). Some of those cats do not look the way they should but I have not got down there yet. I put the two "genres categories" like that so I could see both at once, so I could get down to what had screwed up. Here and there is the wreckage of competing systems. Music genre and music by genre can be in theory or in music direct, yes, and we should look if there is consistency among all the other art forms, not just one. Redheylin (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can just add Category:Music to both for now. That is actually acceptable. The original category scheme was setup this way (for other x by genre, y genres) I remember it well before some editors destroyed it with their own personal version. The real question is how to categorize the music genre articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have categorised hundreds of them already. They were indiscriminately labelled; genres, by genre, musical forms, styles, dance music, music for dance, dances.... I just try to make sure that those main categories get cleared because, say, if "music by genre" is a subcat of "categories by genre" then it ought only contain categories: if it contains articles then it can not be a subset of "categories". I can see there are problems: like I say, it is easy now to spot, because, where there were hundreds of articles in each of those places there are now only 20 or so in each.
Twentieth-century African-American popular forms are just that. They are very notable and so there are many ways to extend the category reach. For example, jazz has particular instrumental associations with the drum-kit, piano and saxophone, say. Well, there are categories for, say, keyboard instruments and their players, someone needs to make sure that "jazz pianists" and "jazz organists" are properly categorised according to instrument, each musician according to era, famous songs, etc, etc...... Redheylin (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, if "music by genre" is a subset of "categories by genre" then it can only end up containing music categories sorted by genre - because "categories by genre" is in turn a subset of the category "categories" and it is there to contain categories. "Music genres" contains music genres, but it cannot contain them all in the top layer, it is a diffusible layer. All of them can be defined and therefore categorised in the ways suggested at the top of the category page. Any way that jazz can be categorised can be included there. I am following the logic that has already been set up and by following it I hope all problems will become clear. It will take a few days more and meanwhile if someone reverts I leave it and just discuss it like this. If there is a disagreement we should try to get administrative help and seek consensus. But I do not think it will end up with music genres classed indifferently as genres, forms, just "music", "by genre" and all the rest. There is also a portal system that can be applied to music genres, there can be a jazz portal, may be already, I have not looked at that side of things. Redheylin (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you would stop depopulating the Music by genre category. And I have no idea where you got the notion to create Category:Sociological genres of music. Can you talk about that when you get a chance? For example, why did you place Psychedelic music in sociological genres of music? Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re Redlink (with replies transferred from user page)
You have just reverted a redlink fix. Officious editing often makes for bad wiki pages. You say you are reverting on the grounds that the erroneous language comes from reliable sources. Since the sources are erroneous, their reliab8ility is questionablep therefore please quote verbatim inline sources for the use of this terminology and admit similarly reliably-sourced caveats to these statements. Please do this as quickly as you reverted. I shall supply the Alford reference. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt - a negative cannot be proved. You require a verbatim statement like "Time magazine called her a second in command" for the use of this terminology. "Private secretary" is easy to verify. "Administrator of commune" is easy to verify. "Second in command" is being questioned, "high ranking" is being questioned. I am challenging unsourced statements. You want them there - please source them and admit that they are the opinions of this source. Redheylin (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can say "a US dept of Justice press-release called her "second in command"". The Oregon history article only calls her commune director, which is correct. Neither uses the term "high ranking". The Dept of Justice statement will require a rider, since it is a single statement made by a person who is not an authority on the religion and its structure. Redheylin (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have sources? Then why not cite them when required? The Oregon history one must go, it is misleading. Please be advised that the Dept of Justice source remains challenged for reliability and can be countered by more reliable sources. It may be best to remove challenged descriptors from the lede, since this will lead to obfuscation. Why not simply use your unassailable references for correct descriptors. You are forcing me to remove a correct ref in favour of a bad one.
Redheylin (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources currently cited most certainly satisfy WP:RS. I am currently in the process of adding many more, please be patient. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking ME to be patient? And you are doing instant reverts and accusing me of disruption? Please put these matters right, and bear in mind that the above source is challenged as non-reliable vis-a-vis the nature and structure of religious movements. Why not simply use your accurate source properly? Please do not try to make it say what it does not say - I assure you it is accurate, reliable, neutral and supportable in what it DOES say. You have 24 hours. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still in process of adding multiple sources verifying command structure of the organization, sources mentioning "second-in-command", etc. Please do not use CAPS, this simply serves to degrade the discussion to a non-constructive combative nature which is not helpful, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
come and do some work to improve .
Hi red.
forget about that .
come and do some work to improve my new page created today that cirt is already attempting to get deleted. here..
Rajneeshee
Hi, Red. From a posting to AN/I found here, I'd like to take a moment to remind you about our policies for neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable sources. I see that you've taken opposition with some of the wording in a Rajneeshee-related article. As I'm sure you are aware, we write based on sources; so while you may, for example, know "high ranking followers" to be an improper term, there's not really much that can be done without reliable sources to backup your position. I realize that it is sometimes frustrating when things we are experts in, or otherwise know a lot about, are potentially being misrepresented on Wikipedia, and it's easy to forget about policy and argue what you know, but it's important to slow down and remember that we need reliable sources when in content disputes.
Also, regarding the Osho Follower AFD, please keep comments in the AFD on-topic, commenting on the content, not the contributors. All things unrelated to the article in question for the matter of it's appropriateness for inclusion should be made on relevant talk pages. Avoid making comments that may be taken as personal attacks, and hopefully this can all be resolved quickly and without a lot of stress for those involved. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. I prefer to keep discussions in one place, thus I have added your talk page to my watch list. Should you prefer to instead post to my talk page, I will respond there, so please add it to your watchlist. Regards, لennavecia01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I have responded to your post upon the incidents page, where I have asked for a review of the actions of the complainant and an assessment of the allegations he has made in his complaint. Please advise me whether this request can be honoured without a new complaint. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This" was an unavailable weblink supporting an erroneous statement. "This" was summarily reverted by Cirt. Now you are here, perhaps you will be good enough to respond to our previous discussion? Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link is unavailable and the statement is wrong - the name was Rajneeshpuram. Please let me know if you consider this a bad faith edit. Please also let me know if you consider the separation of two diametrically-opposed statements by "on the other hand" to be POV or bad faith requiring a revert. Then please look at the redlink fix reverted by user on the grounds that "the redlink was requested by the Good Articles advisor" (see above and Cirts' talk page for discussion). Examine the link, please. Then go to Charles Turner (disambiguation) and notice the same redlik there. Also required? I am stilll waiting for Cirt's support of this revert. Please state whether you consider these edits "bad faith" - and then, please respond to my request if you would, taking note that user has reported "an incident" immediately after these edits. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link works fine for me. PDF file. I don't understand the problem with a redlink. Are you saying it is unlikely to ever be an article? I'll look over the other pages now and reply shortly. لennavecia14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick observation, hopefully this helps resolve the above discussion: the link did not work for me; my guess is that we're dealing with a web site that has some configuration error, and is unreliable, supporting the notion that you're both accurate in what you're reporting.
However, a review of WP:V is probably in order. Even if a link has gone completely dead, a book citation is still "good." One can remove the URL without removing the entire citation. Especially on a Featured article, that is the way to go. -Pete (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow PF - you showed me again! As long as you do not see it as bad faith - that has been the accusation, though not from the above editor in the present instance. - I forgot to say - the reason I removed the cite completely was because I felt the statement was open to challenge and needed verifiable, reliable source. Redheylin (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I can't really speak to the reliability of that source -- if that's your concern, I'm not in a good position to evaluate it. Thanks for explaining. -Pete (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the redlink, Jennavecia, if I may:
1) Would you consider removal of any such redlink to be an evident act of edit war or bad faith?
2) The editor reverted - and made such a complaint - on the basis that a good articles review had recommended that this link to this possible future article be included. You can see this post in the "redlink" section above, which was a response to my query about the revert. I have asked for a link to this recommendation but none has been forthcoming. Since this was the apparent reason for complaint, I feel I have a right to ask. Can you help?
Thankyou for your patient attention to the matter. I shall, of course, welcome your more considered thoughts about the other two edits; whether they also are self-evidently bad faith, as the user contended, or whether unsourced, as you yourself contended, given that the lede has no citations, the edits I made agreed with the rest of the article and its sources. As for the Alford plea, it has come to light that the said editor has made numerous edits upon this matter at the Osho page, and could not possibly have been unable to check that my edit was source-able. I therefore cannot see a reason for an assumption of bad faith. Noting that the complaint was made to the incidents page at which you responded, and then three warnings were added afterwards at the talk page, the editor having failed to inform me of the complaint, I feel it is reasonable to request administrators to oversee the situation in all its aspects. It is regrettable though - 200 articles could have been categorised, my editing has been disrupted.
Personal attacks
Your personal attacks (as I explained here) are not welcome, especially in the course of a WP:AFD. If there is some basis for what you said, as you claim, the appropriate way to deal with it is to open an WP:RFC or take other dispute resolution action with regards specifically to Cirt (talk·contribs). But do not mix it in with the AFD at hand; and also, if you choose to proceed, please build a case based on diffs and other specific evidence. -Pete (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user above has chosen to delete my response on his talk page and offer no explanation for his above assumption of bad faith.
You contacted me Pete, saying that I am making personal attacks on a buddy of yours. Well, that seems to me no different from my taking your own remarks as an attack, which I won't. I am saying the user is edit-warring on "new religion" articles. The user swore that those days were gone, no more officious editing, I am a changed character, a civil administrator. Many peope were unsure; "you must promise never to use admin powers near such an article, never to engage in warring and reversion". It has not worked out, and it will not matter if someone else wars on that editor's behalf, because the line is well and truly crossed. I gave 24 hrs respite, but to no avail. The case is easy to build on diffs, but I had not put the case, I kept my word. But I would expect other editors who intervene to familiarise themselves with the circumstances under which that editor accused me of edit-warring, and stated on the incidents page that my primary purpose was to disrupt in order to "promote Osho", and that my contributions show this "focus on Osho". You can see my contributions, there is no problem. You can compare the other editor's edits. To me, this is showing good faith - to examine the other editor's actions. You can look at the edit I made on the "Assassination plot" article and decide for yourself whether this evidently requires a reported incident. That is only the beginning of this case but, personally, I would do this much before making accusations, rather than making accusations and then demanding diffs to prove you wrong. Please check back when you like. Reason is reason, wiki is wiki, fair is fair. Let's see what kind of a man you are. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music by genre
Sorry Viriditas - I was thinking of you and I am glad you called. You were right that Category:Popular music is not enough exposure for the stuff most people want to browse easily. But I had thought the fact that "Music by genre" is flagged and categorised to contain only/mainly subcats spoke for itself. So I have taken over Category:Contemporary music for another point of access, and I see no reason why, for practicality's sake, we should not move that cat up to the top "Music" category. But I am bothered because rock and roll and something else were in "genres" and may get lost. Also, the "contemporary" people may complain it is just for classical. But that will be crazy because there is jazz-classical, classical jazz..... So, anyway, the MAIN styles get classed as Contemporary, Popular, 20thC North American, African American genres and are available near the root of the cat, but "categories by genre" remains a branch of "categories", how about that?
I made a "sociological definitions of genre" because of the cross-influence of genre and culture, which means that a lot of music is linked by non-musical, cultural determinants, such as wedding music, military music, funeral music, religious music.... psychedelic music fits that, as it really means both acid rock, types of trance, all kinds. Timothy Leary said it was the Beatles, but Aldous Huxley thought Bach was psychedelic and John C. Lilly wrote about listening to Greek music. WHat about Yaqui medicine music?? It is psychedelic music just because of its association with a drug culture, not because of any musical reason.
I consider myself to be familiar (although by no means an expert) with the genre, and I have never heard or read anyone refer to psychedelic music as "sociological". I understand your reasoning, but I would prefer to go with the sources on this. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it off if you really believe it does not fit the definition of the lede, by all means, but may I categorise the other important forms as "Popular" and "Contemporary" and make these main genres, along with "Classical" and "Traditional", leaving this available for the purpose of classing music-related subgenera, such as record-labels, composers, albums, etc BY genre? Mistakes may occur at this level as I may categorise through reason rather than/as well as by studying the definition of the genre in the lede. I will need to clean up further down later. Redheylin (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are doing, but perhaps that's not the best approach. Whenever I create a category-any category-I make sure that they actually exist in the literature, whenever possible. In other words, if you feel the need to create a category off the top of your head, do a little bit of research first. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, several categories, some created by me, may turn out to be redundant. There may be unnecessary levels and duplications. It is very likely but hard to say because to work up from the bottom would require a massive co-ordination and massive overload of top layers. Many people have filed in "music", "musical form" - I have cleared many hundred articles. I am passing by many regional genres and I can see different approaches and entanglements in the various branches. But the main thing was that I found this discrepancy, with rock here and reggae there, whatever. That's partly because the "by genre" idea is only obvious at the category level[2]. Visit it and you will see at the left the original use: at the right you will see an accumulation of genres, partly made by me, which is the result of a common misapprehension on the part of page-creators. Redheylin (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that. We already talked about this in reference to the film project in the above section. Please take a moment to look carefully at other examples in those related categories. I don't see anything difficult about music by genre, and it is very straightforward. What I do have a problem with is user-created categories like "sociological definitions" that don't have any relationship to the topic. Always keep in mind, that the category system is intended to help the reader. You are trying to "fix" something that isn't broke. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will take it to mediation when the job is done, but it was you who was confused, that "why are there these two "genres" categories?" - I do not know why you do not accept the reason: it IS confusing. Looks like you may be the only one, after a couple of thousand articles. Meanwhile I'll add "Contemporary music" to the main categories. If you want to complain about the particular category, of course you can. I will get back to you, but there is a great deal more to do that is not controversial. Redheylin (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we crossed that bridge, and now you are turning around and going back over it? There is nothing to take to mediation, other than your rogue categorization. I'm curious what is compelling you to do this. How many editors have expressed issues with your edits? Seriously, when you think that you alone are right, and everybody else is wrong, you need to take a step back and reevaluate the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can we better categorize these dance music genre articles?
I've read the above and am still trying to suss out your music genre hierarchy strategy, but I'm getting a little tangled up in it because I'm not seeing the big picture. Rather than get into the philosophical details, though I really just want to get your input regarding how to categorize a certain few articles which are about genres which don't really fit neatly into the hierarchy.
Balearic Beat was, in the early '90s, a specific genre of downtempo electronic dance music, under which a number of artists, labels and recordings will fall. But earlier & overlapping that period, Balearic Beat was a style of DJing emphasizing the selection of mostly downtempo/midtempo dance music from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk -- in order to create & maintain a certain tropical, laid-back vibe. There are DJs, compilations & labels devoted to this eclectic selection and its continuation under the umbrella of Ibiza/Balearic-themed "chillout" music.
Afro and Cosmic (Cosmic Disco) are a pair of somewhat intertwined styles of DJing emphasizing both the selection and technical combination of different styles of rhythmic music drawn from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk, reggae/dub, disco, classical -- in order to produce a midtempo mix of psychedelic dance music, even when the source material isn't dance music, per se. There is sonic overlap, and the terms Afro and Cosmic get conflated (and even joined) quite a bit, hence the presence of an "Afro/Cosmic music" article and a possibly-to-be-merged "Cosmic disco" article.
Is there a generic dance music category we can put these under?
Additionally, there's the questionable, maybe deletable articles
and maybe a few others, all of which I believe have all been created based on the taxonomy at allmusic.com. As far as I know, allmusic's strategy is to produce a simple, flat tree of genres, and their contributors have no qualms about inventing genres just to bridge gaps or make it possible to tag every artist with a single genre.
"Post-disco" is a good example. It's a half-hearted attempt by one editor (who is now no longer credited on their site) to declare three genres of dance music that were popular between the fuzzy end of disco and the fuzzy beginning of house to comprise a genre, themselves. I recently made significant edits to the post-disco article on Wikipedia to expose what a contrivance it is, but I'm hesitant to nominate it for deletion, because it actually encompasses a legitimate (well, verifiable) genre called "boogie", which is 1979-1984 R&B containing elements of funk, disco, electro, and pop, without being overtly any of those. I'm thinking it would be better to just rename the post-disco article to Boogie-something after better content is added (probably by me).
Notwithstanding the credibility of those allmusic "genres", I'm not sure how to categorize the Wikipedia articles about them. Right now you've got post-disco under disco, which sort of makes sense in that it's a genre defined in relation to disco, but it's a bit like filing Postmodernism under Modernism... the idea is that it's not disco, but rather a reaction against and evolution beyond. And alternative dance is filed under the dance-pop category, as is, well, dance-pop... but shouldn't they be under dance music somehow? —mjb (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Red!
Hi . I'm back from my editing ban a day early Thanks for your support , if I can call it that on the ridiculous titled page Osho Follower. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Stahl.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading File:Stahl.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
I don't have too much information to offer regarding Chinese history and culture, but I'd be happy to help on any China-related article that may need some fixing up. GraYoshi2x►talk17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the text a bit lacking at first, but now on inspection of the sources it doesn't seems too bad. I'll remove the tag. A quick search on the so-called "Further reading" also doesn't seem to turn up anything. Eh, I'll probably just remove that too. GraYoshi2x►talk23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been out of town, and have not had much Wikipedia time. I've been staying away from most CFD discussions these days as I find them very frustrating. Categorization has some serious flaws and I haven't seen much productive discussion on how to deal with the flaws. As for this specific discussion, I think there should be a consensus that any category named with a plural noun should be populated with those articles of populated with subcategories to navigate to those articles when it is not useful to have all of them in one category. I would like to see many less diffused categories. I don't think the criteria for diffusion should be the number of articles in the category but rather the usefulness of being able to browse through a complete set. I think the key is to decide where users are most likely going to want to browse. I think it it far more likely that someone will want to browse through Category:Film actors than Category:American film actors since film is international. This would require much more category duplication than we currently have. I've unsuccessfully fought this battle several times in the past. At this point, I'm waiting for category intersection to be implemented, which will hopefully make much of this problem moot. Because there is no easy way to revert category changes, diffusers are pretty much unstoppable.
Also, if there are going to be articles that describe or otherwise discuss the entire set, but are not themselves members of the set, they should be in a different category. For example, Acting and Actors. These often get jumbled together. I suspect that this is related to the problems with Category:Music by genre and Category:Music genres. Music is both the set and the topic and it is hard to separate these. I'd like to see more labeling of categories to help deal with this problem. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply
Hello, Redheylin. You have new messages at Talk: Sean Combs. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback on this situation. You raised a point about unsupported claims on the talk page about possibly living teachers, FYI I decided to redact the names so they are just "A", "B", "C" and "D" now. I've written to two still-active editors whose comments I've changed—the other comments were by accounts (mostly IP users) who haven't edited wikipedia for over a year, so it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie in their cases. - Pointillist (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I replied to your comments on the talk page and have tried to make some clarrification to highlighted passages. I waited a day (usually a good idea), but re-reading them now I see they could be read as rather combative. This is just to say that, if so, it was not my intention and I would genuenly appreciate your help in improving the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added a comment on the talk page regarding the link to http://www.beatunes.com/ You might want to change that link to BeaTunes in order to replace the external link with an internal one. I am affiliated with beaTunes, so I can't really do it, I guess.
Also, while you're at it, I added some comments to the Talk:BeaTunes as well, that could help improve that page. Again, COI.
I would really appreciate it, if you looked at this and am available for further input.
Thanks!
Hendriks73 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales
Please don't "correct" book titles. The Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales is the title the book was published under. I have corrected your "correction" and moved it back. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Astral projection
You have done a fine job of improving the lead of astral projection. I'm sorry that we could not have worked in a less confrontational manner with one another. I have, however, recently retired from the project. I wish you the best, and no hard feelings. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that interested editors should be invited to contribute to WP:CFD discussions. How do you think that we could find interested editors without excessive spamming? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parzival
Red, please don't take this very minor disagreement to heart. Note that I did not revert your edits, I only removed that one clause about Parsifal. Notable, sure, but it hardly needs to go in the introductory sentence, does it? I have added to the intro and the influence section so that Parsifal is mentioned up front, and placed a hat note lest readers confuse the two works. Please don't think I'm out to own this (or any) article; it needs a lot of work and any improvements are wanted and desired. Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullaint/c20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then Play On
I appreciate your point, but it would be extremely time-consuming to notify everyone who added unsourced material to an article that "citation needed" tags were added. I advise keeping articles you are interested in on your watch list. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is ok, and will do until a better one can be found. I'm sure you understand that uncredited performances on recorded music have to be carefully sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, understood. I do the same sometimes. I too noticed that the refs you just added are the only ones on that page, and your involvement in that article also revealed some other slightly dubious statements that I will endeavour to address at some point. I have so many articles on my watch list that some articles go a bit wild without my noticing, and that is one of them. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - online stuff is pretty thin. Green's biography is a decent source, otherwise interviews in magazines etc are good sources, particularly Guitar Magazine-type publications. The other stuff that needs sourcing is some of the blurb about the various different pressings of the album. It is WP:OR (I remember when the editor wrote it) and could do with cleaning up. Also the other uncredited contributions - Spencer, McVie and Horton. Spencer's piano is a fact, but needs a source. McVie's piano is less certain, and I've no idea about Horton. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, but look at the edit before jumping to conclusions. As to your edit, please note: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Vandalism, indeed, LOL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
What the Dickens does your comment on my talk page mean? I looked at your edits, they were well-intentioned but did not advance the narrative or thrust of the article substantially. I used some of your edits, others not, that's the Wiki way. Apparently you cannot read edit commentary or look at edit changes that were made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
We are done here. Besides the incoherent rambling and lack of focus of your comments, note I could care less about the issue as the Defiant article is one of over 6,000 articles I monitor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I watch edits to Beatle-related articles and I think your recent edits are (mostly) great. I have seen a couple cases, however, where I think you have introduced material into statements with existing citations where the new material is not supported by the source. For example, you added "creating the effect known as 'chorus'" in "Tomorrow Never Knows" as part of a statement attributed to Spitz, The Beatles, page 603. I think that part ought to be sourced. Please be careful with this. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got your note on my page. I usually hold my nose when looking at the genre field in infoboxes; I find they many entries are unsourced and the longer the list, the more likely the genre isn't even mentioned in the article prose.
For TNK, I am torn. There are two genres there now (Acid rock, psychedelic rock) and I am not sure those genres existed when Revolver was released. On the other hand, TNK seems like an early example of the songs that fit the psychedelic genre. I think the best course of action (as usual!) is to rely on what the sources say. Richie Unterberger of Allmusic said in his review "'Tomorrow Never Knows' was the most experimental and psychedelic track on Revolver", and on the "styles" list that's part of the album's review Allmusic includes "psychedelic". As far as "acid rock" goes, I don't think TNK fits, at least not by the WP definition. So, I'd be fine with dropping "acid rock" and adding the quote from Unterberger to support "psychedelic rock". If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Feel free to reply here. I've got your page on my list. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, glad you concur. I'd go further; the genre "rock" itself did not exist in 1966. "Baroque pop", "psychedelic" - I think these are reasonable descriptors, but also did not exist as genres. I'm not impressed by the classifications coined by critics 40 years after, unless in quotes attributed to them. Blank statements; "this track is acid rock, the next one is folk-rock" seem to me fundamentally against the spirit and aesthetic of the music and lead to entries like "this is acid-rock because...." then, "unlike most folk-rock" and so on - an anachronistic distortion of the values that actually drove the recordings. Redheylin (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) New topic: "For No One". I've read the sources you provided for statements related to Alan Civil and I don't see how they support them at all. In his obit in the times, Civil merely mentions that more people know him for his "For No One" solo rather than his other work; he's not "dismissive" of the song or the fans. With regard to complaints about the song being out of tune, the "Torvund" analysis source doesn't say that Civil complained. It merely says that he said the song was "in the cracks between B-flat and B Major." That's not a complaint, and we don't have the context for Civil's remark. I am going to revert the edits, but I wanted you to know why before I did so. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civil "dismissed" the song as "just another session" and regretted that he was pointed out for this, not his recordings of the Mozart concerti. The full "context" of the "complaint" has Civil saying more or less exactly "the song was recorded in poor style". I am pretty sure this is in Lewisohn. The overall drive of his remarks is fairly reflected and it is rather regrettable that you have not sought to confirm this. However, since I am clear on this one I shall seek better quotes. This attitude was quite common among the Beatles' orchestral session men and ought to be reflected: this betokens no approbation, purely reportage.Redheylin (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denni Brain, the premier horn player in Britain, was originally booked to play the French horn solo. As usual, George Martin did not stint in hiring the best session players for the Beatles and in this case there was an element of excitement looking forward to that session. Unfortunately, Dennis Brain died in a car crash before the session...
Please stop posting on my page and on yours. Let's keep the discussion in one place; I'm watching your page and I'll see any responses you make.
You asked what I objected to... I thought I explained it above. You've added "dismissed", but that's your interpretation of his comments. I don't interpret them that way. Civil's comments could certainly be viewed as a commentary on the relative popularity of orchestral and/or classical music compared to pop. It's no slight on the song to say that more people prefer rock/pop than classical. Dismissive is pejorative and there's nothing in his comments to support it. Similarly, Civil mentioning that the song was in the cracks is not necessarily a complaint. Bluntly, I think you are putting a slant on his comments. When in doubt, use his own words and let the reader decide what he really meant.
Regarding Brain, Emerick evidently did not remember clearly. I added something about it to the article a while back, but it was removed as being irrelevant, and I have to agree. Brain's non-involvement is more about Emerick's faulty memory than it is about the song. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emerick said Brain?? Ah well.... and he was too young to remember. The reason for my posting at yours was that you did not answer here. Anyhow, you say; "You've added "dismissed"" and not "necessarily a complaint"; these ARE his words but the thing is, some verb has to be used. In the first case, Civil said "it was only a session, the third that day" and continued straight on to comment that he was famous for this, rather than his classical recordings". This is "dismissive" to me, without any particular pejorative but rather with regret. But you may suggest a better verb if you like.
As regards the second one, I asked if you accepted that Civil was saying the session had been awkward? I quoted the "poor style" comment but that is hard to find on the net, where everybody just copies text, and somebody nicked my Lewisohn. I'd like to assure you that I am not slanting these remarks in any way, I have no reason to. I am simply trying to determine exactly why you are summarily reverting and removing information. So far as I can tell it is because of this supposed "slant". Why not ask me to correct the words "dismiss" and "complain" to "say" then? Why delete information that is validated?
I think http://www.hornsociety.org/en/multimedia/audio/47 will help you understand the drift. It describes Civil as "He wasn't afraid to express his less-than-respectful opinions of conductors." and "He often tried to dissuade students from making a career of the horn, telling them about the nitty-gritty of the profession." He was a bit of a cynical and salty wit in fact. That's all. His comments are entirely in keeping, nothing is "slanted". Redheylin (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Starting with your last paragraph first, other comments by Civil are irrelevant. It's not up to us to assess his personality and interpret his quotes based on that assessment.
Lewisohn has a longer quote from Civil; when you have access to a copy, see page 79. Regarding the varispeed issue, he said "I thought it had been recorded in rather bad musical style, in that it was 'in the cracks' neither B-flat nor B-major. This posed a certain difficulty in tuning my instrument." We can argue about whether that's a complaint or not, but why bother? Let's use more of his own words and let the reader decide if he was complaining.
Civil said that the song was "recorded in rather bad musical style, in that it was 'in the cracks' neither B-flat nor B-major. This posed a certain difficulty in tuning my instrument."
His comments in Lewisohn do not indicate that he was dismissive of the song. He described his own friends excited reaction to his playing with The Beatles, compared to a non-reaction hen he played with notable classical musicians, but he didn't indicate any displeasure about that. His quote about the session was, "For me it was just another day's work, the third session that day in fact, but it was very interesting!" None of that is even remotely "dismissive" of The Beatles or of the song.
Lastly, regarding your question, "Why delete information that is validated?", I don't accept that it's validated, and I believe you have interpreted the source in a way that is not accurate. (I am not suggesting that you are doing so deliberately.) I am somewhat confused by your comments about needing to find a verb as there are many neutral verbs we could use. I reverted the edit because I think the article is better with those statements removed, and in general, that's how WP works: bold, revert, discuss. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JC - if you really think that "bad musical style" is not dismissive, pejorative or complainant, so be it. Please just insert the information. I had intended to convey that Civil was "dismissive" of the recording session - and I have never been able to figure out why they left him to record like that, it was thoughtless - and of its importance relative to a Mozart concerto, its significance to him in his career. "just another session" to him. You'd be mistaken to infer that that the data was intended as some divine value judgment on the Beatles and their music as a whole. However, you'd also be mistaken to assume that the orchestral musicians necessarily saw any value in it. Look also at the leader's comments - what was his name, Eric.....? - about that "bloody song" and the "Day in the Life" fiasco. I assure you there's no misinterpretation, no slant - just Civil being Civil. Or maybe unCivil.
One thing I have noticed in all this; there's a lot of poor information out there on this matter, a lot of speculation. That's why it is important to include as much verifiable data as possible: it's a notable subtopic. Thank you for taking the time to check that I was right. I trust you are not now shifting to some other reason for excluding the material? That would be an inexcusable waste of time. There are, as you rightly say, plenty of neutral verbs. That's exactly why I questioned the reversion. Bold? When you are in touch with another editor working in good faith, "bold" can look "uncivil". You ask me to refrain from contacting you then take hours to answer. Let us please simply insert the information in a neutral and complete form and get on. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't think you are reading my posts carefully. He was not dismissive of the song. His comment that the song was recorded in a poor musical style applied to the recording process, not the song. That's two different things.
Second, I think you are drawing conclusions based on reading his comments and other material that are not supported by the evidence. Your comments above indicate a tendency to do that. For example, "I have never been able to figure out why they left him to record like that, it was thoughtless." We don't know that it was "thoughtless". There may have been very good reasons why they did it that way, and no matter what those reasons were, it's unlikely their intent was to make things difficult for Civil. It's not our job to interpret the evidence and draw conclusions. We are supposed to report the evidence. We usually have to summarize that evidence, but we must do so in a neutral manner.
Next, my point about being bold was to connect you to the WP process. I was not saying that I was being bold in reverting you. In fact, it's the opposite: you boldly made changes to the article. I contested one of those changes and reverted it. After that, we're supposed to discuss it. You did nothing wrong by editing the article—though I disagree with the content—and I did nothing wrong by reverting it. My first revert was primarily because the material was unsourced and was not a simple matter of fact, such as the date the song was recorded. (You've added other unsourced material into the Beatle articles you've edited over the past two days. That's a bad sign.) My second revert was because the sources didn't support what you wrote. You feel otherwise, but disagreements arise in a collaborative editing environment. You made dozens of edits to articles that I watch and our only serious disagreement is about this one. You could view that as a great success; dozens of edits, only one revert.
I am surprised by your comment "You ask me to refrain from contacting you then take hours to answer." I didn't ask you to refrain from contacting me; I've simply said that we can keep our discussion in one place. I have your talk page on my watchlist and I will see your responses here as soon as I see them anywhere else. Regarding the speed with which I reply, you can't expect other editors to respond immediately. There are other things going on in my life than editing WikiPedia, I may be in a different time zone than you, and my conversation with you on WikiPedia may not be my highest-priority wiki work. I am watching hundreds of articles and many of them are actively being changed. (You are responsible for some of those edits.) Meanwhile, I have my own little projects. Answering you may not happen in minutes. The world won't end tomorrow if we don't resolve this issue today.
I think we ought to use more of Civil's own words and avoid introducing our own verbs. If you feel strongly that he was dismissive, then you should be fine with using his own words: surely readers will agree with you if they also read what he said. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was not dismissive of the song." No, that's what I said above. "Your comments above indicate a tendency to do that. For example, "I have never been able to figure out why they left him to record like that, it was thoughtless."" I am discussing the issue with you on the talk page. If I had put it in the text that would be something else, but I am seeking some consensus on the tone of Civil's remarks. The only thing I can think is; that Martin would not venture to re-speed a classical session-man, or thought the horn's tone might be compromised. Still it is strange that nobody ever recounted any conversation about this. I think perhaps it would not have occurred to Civil, it was a new and non-classical technique. Classical bloggers speculate that the clavichord was out of tune, but it had been overdubbed onto a studio piano. The track had been varispeeded and it is difficult to figure out how; are the remarks about "top E" referring to horn or concert pitch? I'd like to get it as clear as possible, even if I have to write to somebody about it. As for "trying to make it hard", a couple of McCartney's remarks do suggest a certain devilment. Another issue, by the way, is to establish that MCCartney dictated the part to Martin; it was not an improv.
You also write; (You've added other unsourced material into the Beatle articles you've edited over the past two days. That's a bad sign.) I take my cue from the state of the article. For example I have edited dozens of Indian music articles and there are few cites but I take the material on trust and simply put the article in order and correct the English. Where there are a mass of citations already then I maintain the standard, as also if there is controversy. I have mostly refrained from popular music in order to avoid argumentative fans whose grasp of English makes the Indians look like Jane Austen and whose grasp of wiki is worse. At least you are not them, but you must surely be aware that these articles contain a good deal of OR and I have been stripping a fair amount of it out. Where I add, I add reliably - you may argue about the tone of words but you can see my recall is good. I do not feel too troubled about this after having seen the crap about singing birds and LSD, to be frank. I'm an eventualist: I say "here, have readable, reliable OR at least". I just did "The Yardbirds" and be aware; I am fit to do more Beatles albums, starting with the two before that one. Anything you see you do not like, please write here. Your comments are perfectly reasonable. But I am wondering whether you expect me to spend half an hour on yet another version of the Civil story for you to remove in ten secs or whether you aim to add it yourself? Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to reorganize lightly sourced or unsourced articles to correct grammar, flow, etc. When you introduce new material, you ought to add a source no matter what the state of the article is now. If you want to add something and you know it's verifiable but you don't have the source at hand, self-tag it with {{cn}}. It doesn't matter how good your memory is, the point of sources is to let readers and other editors verify what you added. Without sources, we can't do that without finding sources for ourselves, and we don't have to do that: we can delete the material as unsourced and leave the burden on the editor who wants to re-add it to source it. When otherwise good editors are lax with the standards, they set a bad example for other newbies and other editors who are not as experienced or careful. I guess my summary of that would be, "Two wrongs don't make a right." — John Cardinal (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"But I am wondering whether you expect me to spend half an hour on yet another version of the Civil story for you to remove in ten secs or whether you aim to add it yourself?" As far as re-organisation goes, you re-organise according to your own knowledge - and content and structure are to some degree independent and bad text must sometimes be replaced with good text. Considering (and this is not a swipe at you) your referenced work is liable to be wiped in favour of unreferenced, it'd be foolish to do more. As you see, I come around again, check the comments, check my work - but in this case I do not have copies of the books. OK? Now, this is the most notable issue concerning this song and I want to know practically how it will be resolved. And I am thinking these conversations ought to be copy-moved to talk pages? Redheylin (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Regarding "For No One" and Alan Civil, it's not my responsibility to fix your edit, and we haven't come to consensus so I don't know how to change it. I suggested adding a quote from Civil (see above), but you never made it clear whether that's an adequate solution in your opinion.
Regarding not having the books... If you do not have copied of the books, then don't add the material or self-tag it with {{cn}}. If you add it without sources, another editor can delete it and is right to do so. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", as the edit page says. Speaking of which, here's a diff of a series of sequential edits you made where you added unsourced material. There's some light editing of existing text, but it's mostly an addition. If we weren't having this discussion, I would have deleted it immediately. It needs a source. Are you going tp provide it?
Regarding whether this conversation should be moved, please do not move my posts to another page. If you want to start a conversation on the talk page of the article, go ahead. I'll participate and make new comments there. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, by all means add the quote or else leave me to do it: just say which. If you find my surrounding vocabulary contains something you consider non-neutral then please contact me. I'd welcome your addition of citations or tags: I am adding verifiable material. In the case of "Help" the citations are to the sleeve-note; that is inline in the text: one can also refer to that of "Beatles for Sale" and web-sources like the "Beatles guitars" site.
Sometimes there's undue weight on US releases: I correct it. Sometimes there's gossip I never saw in RS: I remove it. But also, I hope we can agree but say if you do not, in these records there's a move from a rehearsing pop band to an overdubbing composer's band that's marked by things like: stopping touring, use of four-track, use of keyboard rhythm-track, post dubbing lead and bass gtr., outside musicians.... and this is the cutting edge of studio music through the late 20C. I find these stages sometimes insufficiently detailed. I know the records and Lewisohn inside out, but I cannot supply dates and page numbers and do not like to cite without. I can only use web-sources to establish the critical notability of these events. So a paragraph like that in "Help" is a necessary and valuable addition even as it stands and I'd be happy to see it sprout greater neutrality, detail, citations, and I am confident that you are able to supply or note these. Given we both accept that such a class material, in broad outline, ought to be added and can be based on sources we both know, I must rely upon your good faith and able co-operation. If, on the other hand, you feel that these pages already represent the fullest and most accurate possible account of this history, please say so: then I shall be ablte to explain to myself why you consider it good faith to delete. Obviously I see and appreciate your contributions and the good faith of your necessary minding of these articles. Redheylin (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guest
He clearly had a few sannyasin friends and imo was involved in the movement till the day he died, this is reflected within the reports of his death on sannyas news. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I had commented and was hoping that good sense would out, and took it off my watchlist, I was at ANI again the other day, another report by you know who..The pic is not adding anything and is not fre, we don't need it, don;t let them upset you. 19:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
I just wanted to share with you some more private stuff, it is not a problem, if you want to, feel free to send me an email with an address for you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my talkpage, on the left, email this user..click on that and a email will open up, if you have an email address that you don't mind giving me...add it to the email and press send. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my talkpage, look on the left, you will see the toolbox section, in that section you will see, email this user, click on that and a wikipedia email will open up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redheylin - It has been suggested that this exchange of correspondence lead to you acting as Off2riorob's proxy, or collaboration between you two, in complaining about Cirt's conduct (your recent ANI posting). Given Off2riorob's recent disagreement with Cirt the combination of behavior is sort of suspicious.
Would you like to comment on ANI regarding the nature of this discussion you two had?
When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then to immediately choose to go to ANI after you were given biased info from a POV and as-yet-unnamed individual, is indeed a bit bad faith on your part. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI - Claims of falsified sources
Redheylin - In case it was not already clear, it is against Wikipedia policy to repeatedly claim that someone is using false sources without specifically naming what sources are false and what evidence that you have that they are false. It is disruptive behavior and a form of personal attack, alleging that someone else is violating policy without substantive evidence.
Please either provide those details on ANI or retract the claim.
Please stop your disruption at Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford. You have failed to make your case about what contradicts and why, and you have failed to present any sources to back up your argument. Please engage in discussion at the talk page rather than continued reinsertion of inappropriate tags. Cirt (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again failing to acknowledge the points I made. Again failing to present any sources to back up your claims. I request that you retract your most inappropriate claims that I used "bogus" sources, which you have now made both at ANI and at an article talk page, with nothing to back up your claims. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, now would be a good time to step back a bit...
Redheylin - you must provide specific details of which sources are false, and what evidence you have that they are. Continuing to push for sanction on claims of misbehavior without providing evidence is disruptive and a form of violation of our no personal attacks policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made that plain already, but shall be pleased to take note of any specific gap you perceive. I have noted your allegations of bad faith and your recommendation to close the matter without due investigation and request that you either withdraw your remarks or proceed with your allegations. Redheylin (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made it plain. Please list - by article, by reference - what you think are false references, and what evidence you have that they are false.
You went to ANI repeatedly. You now have administrators attention. If you are doing something wrong - and making claims of false sources without SPECIFIC DETAILS as to what source is false and how is something wrong in Wikipedia - we will tell you and give you a chance to correct the problem.
This is that chance.
If you have evidence that Cirt's sources are false, list it, with details, for everyone to review. We do not take your word for it, that they're false. That's not how we operate. Show your evidence.
If you do not have that evidence, explain why you thought they are, and be prepared to retract it if you cannot find specific evidence.
I am taking it seriously. Please respond to my note on ANI re supposed improvement and resolution of contradiction on North Carolina v. Alford by Cirt, and clarify how my reversion is disruptive. Please also note that I have responded to your previous allegations on the ANI page and cannot see any further response from you regarding this. Please also examine thoroughly my report of references on Alford plea page which fail to support the statement re. necessity of admitting stong evidence. I believe these matters are properly logged and merit attention. I repeat, if you find some shortcoming in my report please ask for clarification. I await your acceptance of my response to your previous unfounded allegations at ANI. Do you require transcripts of the given references, for example? Redheylin (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcoming in your report is that you are not listing which specific references you believe are false, and what evidence you have that they are false.
You have made that claim regarding several pages now, and not specified which references are false or misreported.
Again - you have the opportunity to clarify right now. I believe I was clear earlier. I am repeating myself again out of an abundance of caution. But this cannot go on further. You must be specific. You need to promptly either retract the claim, provide the list of references you claim are false and your evidence, or agree that you will provide the specific list in a reasonable time.
We do not require full transcripts. Start with a list of references you believe are false, and why, and what evidence you have or think you can get if you will have to go research it. If you don't have the evidence in hand, explain why you think it's false and what you will do to research and provide the actual evidence.
I am not pursuing the apparent collaboration between you and Off2riorob, you do not need to address it further.
You have continued to make acusations on ANI without making specific, item by item descriptions of how the references were false. I requested that you do so both on ANI and here.
If you continue posting to the ANI thread you must specify the manner in which the references are false or misleading. Merely listing references and then saying that they're somehow wrong is not good enough.
I would like you to retract (strike through, put <s>strikethrough tags</s>) the comment.
If you make further personal attacks on Cirt or otherwise disrupt the process you are subject to being blocked. Please stay focused on the source issues and do not attack individual contributors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine
It's best not to get caught up in a dispute since people get more and more dug in and antagonistic. The consensus process can be trying, but the best way forward is usually to get additional input and to keep things in perspective. Win some lose some. Also, try to to just let provocations go. The accusations aren't helping anyone, and they've been made by various parties in the dispute. I'm sorry to see you being threatened, obviously that isn't helpful. If you can be patient (taking a break might be useful at this point) and return the focus to the content and sourcing issues, leaving the personality disputes out of it entirely, I think you can work through the difficulties. But there are lots of editors and articles here, so sometimes it's best to just leave off editing contentious subject matter for a while so things can simmer down. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your note. When you work it out, I left off editing this for a year - I only intervened to mediate. But even a short involvement with a third party will trigger an edit war from Cirt, will produce hostile and poor quality edits, will produce threats and warnings from self and fellow admins. This effectively boils down to "do not edit these pages" - to page ownership.
We are speaking of, for example, a group of pages around a single issue about which, I understand, Oregonians have a strongly negative POV. The pages are linked together in rather flimsy ways. It is alleged that living person A plotted to kill living person B, and this is ultimately based upon a report or article of which no trace exists on the net, with no details of any publication, on a non-related subject, by an Oregonian lawyer, without evidence of reliability, authority or notability. I asked Cirt to supply additional details for verification of this whole house of cards (all Cirt's own work). Since the case went to trial and got a conviction, this ought to be easy. I am not saying it is not true. Just that it is an extraordinary BLP claim that serves as a bridge between several strongly POV articles. That's all. A year later I am still being attacked for requesting this. This is unacceptable. Still - cheers. Redheylin (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia works by consensus. So other than being patient and discussing it with the other party or parties involved, your best bet is to bring in additional input from other editors using the wp:content noticeboard, the law project discussion page, and the BLP noticeboard. I wouldn't do all three at once, but how about a short note requesting input from other editors on the appropriate articles at the Wikipedia Content Noticeboard? As neutrally as possible, state what the dispute is or what your concerns are, and ask if others will take a look and see what they think. And in the meantime, if you have other article interests, I think getting a breather would be a good thing. Give other editors a chance to have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kilnerfig.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Kevin (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kamadeva 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
