Jump to content

User talk:Robvanvee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.101.62.225 (talk) at 10:28, 24 June 2019 (→reliable sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


List of Britpop musicians

Hello Robvanvee. Can I please get your support on the List of Britpop musicians page? It seems we have a "Dean" problem. The user in question keeps removing Catatonia and Babybird no matter how many reliable sources substantiating their belonging to the original Britpop movement I include in the article. It's really getting insufferable... Thank you very much.

You're telling me. This has been ongoing with the same guy on various articles for quite some time but to be perfectly honest, I either just have had better things to do or haven't had the energy to take this to admin. As far as this list goes however, I'm just not really interested and while I thanked you, it was before I realised you were sourcing a band using just a song as a reference. When one sources a band's genre, you need a source mentioning the band's entire career. So while he correctly reverted you, he did so for the wrong reason. Sometimes you just need to step back and let other editors take care of the situation. Getting worked up over a list just isn't worth it, even when certain people think they own certain articles. BTW hitting ~ four times at the end of your comment will sign and date your comment for you. Try it in your sand box. Happy editing! Robvanvee 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, the source in question was just one of the several articles I've used to make a point about the artists at stake. I've shared quite a few sources stating that Babybird and Catatonia were part of the original Britpop movement, not because of just one song but because a significant part of their career happened during this era and their musical style matched all the codes... but he keeps undoing what I did. He's the exact type of user who made me stop contributing to Wikipedia years ago, actually. It's a real shame...CouchJarvis (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to those sources as this one only refers to tracks. Robvanvee 17:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-added some... if he hasn't removed Catatonia from the list again. ;-) Anyway, here are the links:

https://metro.co.uk/2014/04/16/from-catatonia-to-kula-shaker-where-are-those-britpop-band-members-now-4696675/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/britpop-britain-guitar-taught-world-25-years-ago-1993-blur-oasis-sleeper-elastica-sonya-madan-a8312001.html CouchJarvis (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he has! Listen, just had a wisdom tooth pulled. Give me a day and I'll look into it once I'm feeling better. Till then keep busy on some other britpop articles :) Robvanvee 04:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
....tick...tock...Robvanvee 05:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that went well! Robvanvee 06:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Robvanvee,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

File:Gold & Grey album cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hey Robvanvee, do you have any sort of idea as of why "Binksternet" always reverts edits? Purple Rain has many indications that it needs improving, which I did by taking out repeated information and improving it in other ways, yet "Binksternet" reverted it without an explanation. He seems to revert without ever saying why he did, and seems to not actually look through the improvements. Also with other articles, like Dangerous, I put in key information that the album was the best selling album of 1992 and "Black or White" was the best selling single, yet he reverted it without an explanation. I also source everything and explain what's changed in every edit. Could you perhaps check out the Purple Rain article before his revert and after, and you'll see the huge improvement and perhaps get an understanding of where I'm coming from. Thanks. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you have asked Binksternet on his talk page so perhaps you should wait for his reply. I'm not sure why you are asking me as I am not following that page as such. Robvanvee 11:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, I'm seeing this IP user doing the same things as the recently blocked IP Special:Contributions/88.111.150.20 who was doing the same things as blocked user Keditz. So I'm reverting him per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bink. There you go 92.7.38.194, does that answer your question? May I suggest creating an account if you are that interested in editing as it will help avoid any further confusion. Robvanvee 14:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hello, Robvanvee,

Please take a look at the opened discussion about the recent edits by Dean12065: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_sourced_content,_pushing_a_personal_opinion,_ignoring_assessed_warnings.

I believe if this user want to judge music genres, styles, and give assessment of such music things down the line, it is worth to him to consider to become a contributor to any of top categorized media or such rather than classifying things by his own interpretation. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ This Is Where I Came In (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disintegration

Hi "Robvanvee" - you strangely deleted some references to the Fender VI on the Cure's Disintegration page - care to elaborate why you'd delete information like this that's 100% accurate? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.209.101 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 173. Yeah, it was original research ie not supported by a reliable source. All info added needs to be verifiable. Robvanvee 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robvanvee, here's the problem: on every single live performance of those specific songs, Smith is playing a Fender VI, and it's obviously the same instrument that was used in the recording of them. He's not citing this fact in interviews, and I'm not sure why this would be a stand-out portion to delete if other pages are able to do a basic instrument reference without citing written material. Let me know when you undo the deletion, as it's actually pretty integral to the article. PS I'd say roughly 65% of this article was initially an attempt to push sales for Jeff Apter's book, which speaks volumes about what's getting cited vs not. Please let me know as I spent time including that and to delete it is questionable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.151.93 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read any of the links I highlighted in my last message? ..."and it's obviously the same instrument that was used in the recording of them"...We don't do obviously's here, only cited material from reliable sources which your original research is not! Other pages with questionable unsourced material may have said material deleted but just because those pages have poorly sourced info (thereby lowering the quality of those articles) does not mean to say we should do the same here. If what you say is so, you should have no problem finding sources to support this and please read the links I sent you in the last message as there is something important in this policy that I'd like to bring to your attention, which is: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Robvanvee 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You are doing a great job in terms of contributions to wikipedia. Keep going. Dileepkandula (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but what in particular are you referring to if you don't mind my asking? Robvanvee 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

heads-up

Hello My name is Nahom I edited the page You Learn to include that it samples a 1992 song by Jamaican artist Shabba Ranks. Due to Wikipedia's captcha system, I cannot do the in-line citation myself, because it does not work with my screen-reader and there is no audio option. As for the website, the website analyzes samples submitted to them. The staff of the website heavily modorate it and nothing goes on there without careful verification.

So if you could help me with citations or find a way ti include this rather important note in the song, as it is the bases of the song's beat, then that would be awesome. thanks Nahom 23.151.192.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this regarding your source. Robvanvee 10:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I source samples then, and where does it say anything about whosampled? I'm not reading along policy page, I can't just scan it like you guys can with your eyes. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am asking what section are you wanting me to look under as I don't want to read the entire page. I'll look at the section but it doesn't answer how I can source a sample if the questionable allmusic doesn't list it? Many music articles list songs that are sampled that the label either doesn't know about or something. The song sampled in You Learn is called Mr. Loverman. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once it opens the page, scroll to the end of the table. They are listed alphabetically and Whosampled is at the bottom. The reason given is because the website is user generated. I have no idea where to source that, nor am I really particularly interested. My only concern is keeping things reliably sourced. If you find a reliable source, I'd be happy to help with adding it to the article. Good luck. Robvanvee 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I just hope you guys realize that Mr. Loverman was indeed sampled in You Learn. listening to the songs it's obvious but I know that's not enough. It is dead true though. People need to realize that not reliable sourced does not mean false. Perhaps a note on the reliable sources page needs to be mentioned that just because something is not reliably sourced it doesn't mean it's false. thanks 23.151.192.180 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Just a heads up, you should have reported the user to AIV for this edit. Adding unsourced content after a final warning could of had him blocked. Since you issued another final warning, we will have to wait for disruption again. I also question if their username is allowed since Dope=slang for drugs. Judging by @Binksternet: post on CheeseAndDope's talk page, they have been disrupting Wikipedia for awhile from various IPs. Seems like this is a WP:LTA thing, but I do not watch list enough hip hop articles anymore to know the extent of what's going on. So if anyone does this needs to go to ANI probably. StaticVapor message me! 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight yeah, but I've seen enough from this guy to know he is probably going to do it again sometime soon so let's just keep an eye on him. BTW I'm pretty sure you can also report them at ANI if they've received 3 final warnings. Anyways...watching Mr Dope. Robvanvee 20:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like our old friend BushidoBrown is back with a new sock. The report I made here talks about his style and the usage of Delaware IPs. I will start a sockpuppet case. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect

Excuse me but I did cite sources and as a result the creator of the page kept the genre and I also went on the talk page. Rather you should be correcting the user disruptively reverting clearly cited sources and information on the page to cover up a fact. Reassess your priorities. Wikierman337 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your issue here where I have responded to your initial comment. Robvanvee 17:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any confusion

Dear Robvanee, I want to apoligise for any mess I have caused. After I realised the screenshot from the fan-made music video was unacceptable, I put in the official album art (making a note that there were no singles, so that was why there was no specific artwork for that song in particular), along with my well-cited and improved paragraph about the song, with reviews from newspapers both when it came out and from today. Can't you see I'm just trying to help edit? I'm really sorry if any of this has been misconstrued as edit warring/vandalism, but I swear to god it isn't. Please let me help with the page by having the paragraph I wrote there, and since you have stated you don't want me too, we can call it quits on the image. Please mate? Thank you for your time. I apologise once again for any confusion i have inadvertently caused.--Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leavepuckgackle. Thank you for taking the time to leave this message, we are now moving in the right direction. I'm going to start a conversation here which is the right place for this topic. Robvanvee 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Robvanvee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Surprises

I was the one who added the information about the original key of the song, and the only source there is, is a PDF file of the info in the MiniDisc leaks indicating it, which was a collaboration of several different users, including r/Radiohead and Discord, and the actual audio file, which is only available (legally) through bandcamp (though it may not be up forever, as it said that it will only be up for 18 days). I'll admit I'm not good at citation, but this situation confuses me a lot.

Highfidelity2020 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. All info on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced as per this policy. From the sounds of things, that doesn't sound like a very reliable source. In which case it's better to omit that detail. Robvanvee 09:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the audio file was uploaded by Radiohead themselves, and after audio manipulation, if sped up by a semitone, perfectly matches the released version. That's the only one that's close to being reliable, but the audio is locked in with an entire almost 1-hour track (due to it being on MD). But I guess it's better to omit it for a while until further information is found. Highfidelity2020 (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ping Popcornduff here to better advise you as no one knows their way around Radiohead articles quite like he does. Your thoughts on this Popcornduff? Robvanvee 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can't include this information until it's covered by a reliable secondary source. Sorry. Them's the rules.
There's been a lot of Wiki activity on Radiohead articles recently, following the leak drama. I plan to swoop in and clean it all up soon. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the horses mouth 😁 Thanks. Hope that answers your query Highfidelity2020. Robvanvee 13:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime

Hi Robvanvee, I've genuinely got a concern with the semi-retired user User: FlightTime. This user has left quite a few warnings on my page (I believe only one other user has left a warning) yet when I tried to explain to him that I sourced my edit (he accused me of editing with out putting in sources) he ignored me which gave me the impression that he knew I was right. Then I then go to his talk page to explain myself and let him know that I believe this a genuine misunderstanding on his part (because I definitely sourced what edited), but he removed the message from his talk page; so he doesn't even give me the chance to explain myself. This user has constantly given warnings for things which no one else has given a warning for, and then always throws in these little insults and shows that he seems genuinely pissed off because a new user has made a few mistakes. You can check my Talk history and his too, to see me trying to have a discussion but not being given the chance.

From my experience with this user, I believe he uses his status on Wikipedia as an unfair power: he has thrown small insults at me and doesn't give me the chance to even have a discussion with him. Other users have been fair and stated on my Talk page "Thanks for your contributions" and will kindly let me know what to read so I can take what's read on board when I next edit. This guy is the total opposite, seriously just not a nice guy. I haven't come across a user like him. It seems to me that he get's a boost from trying to shit on new users. These are my honest thoughts. Please read my discussion with him on mine and his Talk history so you will know that I'm not exaggerating. Thanks. 8eatle (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@8eatle: Don't trouble yourself, I'm done trying to teach you. Good luck with your tenure. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, what do you gain from insulting and just generally being rude to other users? Please let me know. Also, you didn't acknowledge me trying to explain to you that I actually did support my edits with sources. Why? When I try to explain to you, you ignore me or delete the message but when I try to explain to another user you tell me "Don't trouble yourself"? So my impression is that no one can really get a chance of having a genuine discussion without you trying to make them look like "trouble". 8eatle (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been checkuser blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you do what you can to encourage the "newbies". Robvanvee 05:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

selam

My name is Nahom

You may want to start coming up with a non-Americanized (as in American university standard) definition of a reliable source that is non-maleable, to prevent confusion.

Whosampled (at least according to the standards I have known over my life) is a reliable source as their information is heavily vetted and strict. If one wants to submit, you must prove it really well or it doesn't get on there, because claiming a song samples another is serious business.

I can understand about last FM and discogs not being reliable for birth places, per Kim Sozzi and Kim Esty, because they are rather wiki-like. Whosampled on the othe rhand is much closer to CBC or BBC or else other sites that wiki views as reliable (again, this is the problem with maleable definitions). So don't you dare revert the edit that I restored unless you can come up with a non-American standard and non-maleable definition of a reliable source.

Americans tend to view reliable sources as essentially being scholarly. this isn't a college or university paper.

thanks


thanks199.101.62.225 (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources Robvanvee 04:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't assume my nationality or make idle threats on my talk page. If you are wrong, which you are, I will revert you. Robvanvee 05:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nobody is assuming nationality. If I was I would have said "you crazy dutch man" because your name is dutch.

However whosampled is reliable due to its heavy vetting process.

The standards many users use for reliable appear to be rather like those of American colleges and universities.

The page you linked leaves a malleable definition of reliable, malleable as in open to different views of the term.

199.101.62.225 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robvanvee&oldid=903221376"