User talk:IronGargoyle/Archive 13

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

DYK for Oksana Masters

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Recorded Pianists

For God's sake, will you please stop deleting the red links without seeking some consensus? There's a section for discussing this issue on the talk page. Drhoehl (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the talk page. The guideline represents the consensus of the wider community which I am enforcing. I offer some suggestions there as well. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of banjo bands (worldwide)

Hi Iron, I've just seen your note about deleting the list I created quite some time ago. Would you mind putting it back while we discuss your concerns? Apparently you have no problem with the existence of a list of cellists so I am unsure as to your personal opposition to a list a banjo bands. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

p.s., I, like you, are busy in the real world. In fact I'm producing an all banjo jazz festival this weekend, Sept 8th & 9th, 2012, so please have patience with my responses as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any personal opposition to lists of banjo bands, as long as there are notable banjo bands to include in that list. I undeleted the page and moved it to User:Scalhotrod/List of banjo bands (worldwide). This list should not include non-notable bands, and if you move it back to mainspace I will list it at AfD unless there are more bluelinks on the list. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Iron, Thank you for retrieving it, I appreciate that. With regard to your concerns, within the banjo, banjo music, and jazz communities, all of these bands are notable. The fact that most of them do not have an associated WP article is unfortunate, but does not necessarily indicate that they are not notable to those respective communities. I am one of those that believes that "notability" on Wikipedia is a bit of a moving target and utterly relative. What is critical and vital to one is irrelevant to another, its just the way that the world works and Wikipedia should reflect that.

With regard to your demand (and I refer to it as such because of your comment to "AfD unless there are more bluelinks on the list), how many is enough? Is it a flat number or certain portion or percentage? Please understand, I'm not trying to obtuse or patronizing, but the list was seemingly just fine until your discovery of it so I am trying to better understand your criteria for making it acceptable to you. Best regards, Chris --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Only one of the entries actually has its own article (Peninsula Banjo Band). One notable entry is not a list. It may be that the other bands are notable, but there is no proof (i.e., they are not verifiable). Proof of notability requires reliable and independent sources. None of the sources in the article are independent; they just link back to band websites. I don't think there is a set number that the list needs, but there really should be more than a tiny handful of verifiable, notable bands to justify a list on Wikipedia. At the very least, the entries retained in the list should have reliable, independent sources (even if some of the entries don't have articles yet themselves). Everything else should be removed. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Iron, Fair enough and I understand your concerns and recommendations. I'll do my best to address them and seek help with the addition of a sufficient number of articles. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Hargrove

Hey Packer fan, tell me anything that I wrote about Anthony Hargrove is untrue. Go ahead, watch the footage and tell me what I wrote didn't happen... I'm waiting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.163.34 (talk • contribs)

I'm not a Packers' fan, and you might want to check out Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view before making any further edits. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Psychology

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Social psychology, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks,IronGargoyle (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi IronGargoyle. I think indeed you made a mistake. Both In-Mind and the app links are free or low-costs ways to disseminate social psychological knowledge. In fact, both have been extensively reviewed and are created by academics for the general public. The apps are also non-for profit and can contribute to the reader's knowledge, much similar to Social Psychology Network (and in fact the app is endorsed by an association like Association for Psychological Science). Could you please put the links back? 137.56.43.220 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Best H-Iz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.56.43.220 (talk)

Dear IronGargoyle -- today you were extremely quick in removing the links that you marked as spam. In my opinion they are certainly not spam, but I have been waiting for quite some hours. Would you mind getting back to me? H-Iz 83.83.56.15 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look over Wikipedia's policies on external links as well as conflicts of interest. Point four on external links to avoid seems particularly relevant. Social Psychology Network is not a fair comparison, as it is one of the largest organizations in the field. It also appears you have a conflict of interest in adding the link; if your resource is of sufficient quality to eventually include in the article, another editor (without a conflict of interest) may see fit to add the link at some point in the future. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

HI there. Thank you for your answer. I think this could be interpreted in two ways. If one continues to the issue of promotion (which is I think the vital point in what you point out), the page discusses advocacy, opinion pieces, and so forth. This is certainly not applicable here. Point 11 seems to be more applicable, that is, being a recognized authority. The site has an editorial board of graduate students, and an editorial review board of international experts (see the 'For Authors' page). See for example the issue of notability. It seems weird to claim that folks like Barsalou, Fiske, and Herbert are not recognized authorities. The app to which was linked is further endorsed by folks like Cacioppo and Reis, who are two of the most notable people in the field. And yes, the magazine is the largest organization in the field for communicating to lay audiences so the comparison seems fair (and certainly more recognized than the links to Wilderdom.com or the Shippensberg page - these are in no way recognized authorities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.61.107 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Brograve

I did put an edit summary!--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You did. My mistake, sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Could you ask for Zonga (music service) to be created please