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 BBMXM1426 (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 17 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The AllMusic sidebar IS reliable

AllMusic is used for the vast majority of music genre citations on Wikipedia. You claiming “it’s not reliable” without any supporting evidence to back up your claim does not make it a fact. Reverting edits back. This seems to be various user’s recurring problem with you.

Only newbies such as yourself that have yet to learn the rules. I'm going to explain this to you again since I explained in the edit summary when I reverted you as well as a special note on your talk page. This says you may not use the AllMusic sidebar to cite genre's, however you can use reviews that explicitly make mention of said genre. So you'll excuse me when I revert you in an attempt to stick to the rules which I've now explained 3 times. Please be sure to start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page as per these guidelines. Another thing: please sign your comments with 4 (~) which willleave your name, date and time. Robvanvee 18:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go Look

Go look at Vanilla Ice's discography. You'll find what you are looking for. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be unnecessary. However I leave this here for you to peruse in your own time in case you missed it in my edit summary when I first reverted you. Robvanvee 04:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pros and Cons of Cherry Vanilla

Hi, thanks for the note.[1] I didn't create a reference for the addition to article as I didn't think the edit would be controversial as Cherry Vanilla is listed in the liner notes. But I put the Discogs link in the edit summary just in case anyone thought that I was inventing that credit out of whole cloth. It's true that Discogs database can be edited by users, but do the scans of album covers not qualify as primary sources to your mind? I'll see if I can find a different source. I did find a larger scan of the back cover[2], but I don't know that it would be considered any more reliable than the Discogs link. If you have a suggestion, I'll take it. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (séance) 12:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at WP:ALBUMS, I see now that the best practice for citing liner notes is to use {{Cite AV media notes}}, so that's what I'll do. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 13:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. Robvanvee 13:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Gotit

Please assume good faith in edits before using a block warning template on talk page, it is confirmed Lil Gotit has a son, based on multiple YouTube videos of Gotit's instagram lives as well as his instagram account. The links to the sources can be found on Lil Gotit's official instagram and YouTube channels, they are here, here, here, here, and here. Here is a link to Lil Gotit's son instagram account operated by his son's mother,If common sense is used, even though the sources are techinically "not reliable" you can infer that Gotit does indeed have a son.

As for why content of rumors regarding Lil Gotit dating Bhad Bhabie were removed, it has not been confirmed officially by neither artists and the relationship is still considered a rumour. So it is un-encyclopedic to add rumors in a biography. 

--Proudpakistani11 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this. It is not my job to source your edits. Robvanvee 05:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brockhampton

Watched it live. Was waiting for links to be posted.

May I suggest waiting until sources are available and also, please sign your comments. Thanks. Robvanvee 07:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interscope!

I just reduced the laundry list of artists in the lead section of the Interscope article. I'm sure it will become totally indiscriminate again, but points for trying, right? (And hello!) JSFarman (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Julie, love your work! A much needed job and yes, I'm sure we are going to need to keep an eye on it. I have been removing red-links from record label artist lists lately. Also something that has crept in over the years. Keep well and thanks for the note. Robvanvee 04:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why the interest from your side in label related articles specifically? I'm obsessed with music and that covers my main interest on Wikipedia and obviously record labels fall into that category. Just interested in what motivates other editors around here. Robvanvee 05:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after sending you the barnstar I looked at your user page and have probably had my question mostly answered. Robvanvee 05:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you so much for the barnstar (which I will display proudly) -- it was the best message I've received in years. Usually when a new message shows up on my talk page it's from someone who is pissed off about an article I reviewed. And right back at you - I am a huge fan of your work. (Your edits show up on my watch list all the time - we have a lot of articles in common.)
And, yes, my background explains my interest in labels, but it's also an interest specific to Wikipedia. I thought a lot of the label articles were either spinny or outdated. And more problematic (for me) was that several were inaccurate and/or didn't reflect the history of the label. The issue was the most dramatic with Interscope; it waasn't really spinny but it didn't cover much of the most signficant history of the label. So I rewrote it. I also did major surgery on RCA and removed the LA Reid hype in the Epic article. (It still needs a ton of work!) I am working on a rewrite of Rounder right now. And someday I will do 4AD! (PS! I just went to check out the Epic article and discovered that the claims of sexual harassment against LA Reid had been diminished. Nice.
ALSO! Are you plugged into the debacle that is List of best-selling music artists? It makes my head explode.
Thanks again! I will look forward to crossing paths again! JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. "Are you plugged into the debacle that is List of best-selling music artists?" I am now! (added to my watchlist) Till next time Julie. Robvanvee 05:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and remove from watchlist! Now that is just way too busy and there are far too many opinions and egos. I prefer things a little quieter. :) Robvanvee 16:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles with possible sock puppet.

Hello. I'm having issues with user TrackerMercurial136 adding unsourced content to sales and certifications tables on album pages, and not being able, for the life of them, to site these properly. Come to think of it, this sock puppet exhibited similar behavior. Can you please give me a hand with this? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean unsourced content? Is the RIAA database not considered a source?? I cite that everytime and give a valid explanation. Also, you're citing old sources that aren't valid. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your "you're citing old sources that aren't valid" remark, I'm going by sources (such as Billboard) that use Nielsen SoundScan - which specializes in pure sales ... so yes, they are valid! Next, The RIAA posts certifications, not pure sales. Many times they don't match up! Here's an example; Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... has sold 1.1 million units as of 2009 - 10 years later and the RIAA still hasn't given it platinum status. That's why in the Certification field we still have "Gold" and in the Certified units/sales we have "1,100,000". Until (or rather if) the RIAA updates its status, it will stay at Gold. The sales I'm sure have increased in the last 10 years, but until Soundscan updates the current number of sales, it will stay at "1,100,000". Hope this finally makes sense to you. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand what you're saying. So I'm guessing Nielsen Soundscan is more reliable than the RIAA since it doesn't keep up with sales. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also for double albums, each sale a disc gets, it counts as 2 right? TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made.

I made those changes to "The Eternal Idol" per the sources recited. Check the source 'Allmusic' and you will see that the dates for release were in fact 1 November 1987 (UK) and 8 December 1987 (USA and other global locations). Please return that information back to the information given from the cited source. Thanks (Pward0212 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what information you want me to return, you have already added the (correct) dates back. So thanks for that. It would be helpful to the reader and other editors if you put a footnote or if need be, a citation next to your change so there is no dispute from over zealous editors like myself. Check out the link I sent you in my welcome for citing sources as just stating it in your edit summary means that someone else further down the line will change it without seeing your edit summary. It also greatly increases the quality of the article and that is what we all should be striving for. Let me know if you need any help and welcome again. Robvanvee 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added one now to give you an example. Robvanvee 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Robvanvee,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 803 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Requests on record label pages

Hello Robvanvee -

I just want to make sure I'm clear what improvement you're hoping to see before I put much more work into these articles. Your initial edits to 75 Ark, 7th Magnitude, ATIC Records, and Barely Breaking Even removed artists from the roster list because they were not notable (I don't know how much WP:BEFORE was done here, though; other editors who have made similar edits often simply do this as "whack-a-redlink" rather than actually investigating notability in earnest). I think, in general, that a comprehensive artist list is both permissible and desirable; I see it as the chief benefit of a record label article in the first place - the most common need on such articles for the ordinary reader is to know who was signed to them - and is the principal justification for having a list over a category (which naturally is designed to exclude what does not have an article). It's also supported by the list guidelines and by WP:NNC. But in your reversions to my edits, you change the rationale for the action to be about WP:V. Two things about this: one, it's curious that you see a V issue with the redlinked entries, but not the bluelinked ones; and two, who is signed to what label is rarely even remotely a controversial subject - it's something so WP:SKYISBLUE easy-to-verify that, with a few exceptions, people rarely have cause to demand scrupulous citation additions for it. If you've looked at these label pages and noted discrepancies - if we have genuine good-faith reason to think that some of these additions aren't legitimate - I am happy to start looking up the entries and verifying them. But I'd like to be sure that's why you've actually reverted me. I ask this because it has happened to me multiple times before that editors, in a fit of pique, have used V as a WP:LAWYERly stick to beat me with into citation-farming, and it is time-consuming, strikes me as very minimal in terms of value added, and saps my desire to work on the project in other capacities. Chubbles (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles. Thanks for making contact. Just to be clear, the reason I have an issue with the article-less entries (article-less and redlinked) is that there is no way to determine whether they ever were with the label. The blue linked artists require further scrutiny but for now I gave them the benefit of the doubt until I have time to go through those. The problem for me with your argument is that articles end up with loads of non-verifiable entries that, as far as I am concerned completely lower the quality/standard of these articles which we should all be striving towards improving. I find just filling articles with non-notable (it would seem obvious to me that WP:V = mainstream coverage = notability) unsourced entries counter to this. It's not true to apply WP:SKYISBLUE because while you say "easy-to-verify" it does still require verification. And the onus of that, as you know, lies with the editor that adds or restores the info. Next thing you know we have a new editor or IP adding loads of random names to label articles, do we just allow that? I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this as I said in an edit summary, I just wanted to start on one end of the spectrum moving through label articles improving quality, refs etc. even if that meant that some info gets deleted. Robvanvee 13:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you - I don't really see "Next thing you know we have a new editor or IP adding loads of random names to label articles, do we just allow that?" as a serious concern. I have, on very rare occasions, observed this in isolated incidents (the lone example that comes to mind is the repeated addition of an unsigned artist to the Because Music page), but not nearly so much to switch my default from "label affiliation is usually trivially verifiable in legion published works, including the albums themselves, so I'll only remove if I have legitimate suspicion" to "we should preemptively remove any of these that aren't footnoted because WP:V demands it". If the entries are unverified, that is not the same as being unverifiable - to start, Crowhead and Gripper, two artists once signed to ATIC, are verifiable here and here. I do hope in the future that you will seek to verify them before removing them - it is extraordinarily time-consuming to sit and add citations one by one to these lists merely to satisfy single editors, and I'd much rather spend my time verifying genuinely controversial or uncertain content. Chubbles (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree but perhaps we just have different ideas as to what constitutes a quality article. Thanks for initiating this discussion. All the best. Robvanvee 04:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.M. Deletion

Robvanvee. It seems a pity to miss out especially as it is such an important album and it was high in Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums book. I think Larkin's (Colin Larkin) books generally have more cred than say The Independent newspaper - and maybe a couple of others listed here. It seems a bit USA heavy also - but by all means weave into the text -- I have a copy of the last 5th Concise edition and can copy the text if you want to take a quote? I am not confident yet about what to add from actual text so I leave it to you experts. In the 5th Edition he states " the album has endured as a modern classic". Regards - Muso805 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Muso805 (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 reviews is the maximum allowed per article as per this guideline. Robvanvee 13:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you only need to leave one message at the article talk page regarding this, which you have done. There is no need to repeat the message here as well as a private email to me, thanks. Robvanvee 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"More than a feeling" song use on "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film

i think your deletion is not right; yes, on the 2 sources is not explicit said what you have delete, but:

on source 1 is reported this "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film dialogue:

Bob Wilton : So what do you use to remote view?
Lyn Cassady : I drink. And I find classic rock helps.
Bob Wilton : Any music in particular?
Lyn Cassady : Boston. Boston usually works.

on source 2 is reported that "more than a feeling" song from boston is in the soundtrack of "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film

..even if you dont have see the film, you can suppose is quite true that: "The song was played in the 2009 film The Men Who Stare at Goats, as one of the preferred classical rock songs used by Lyn Cassady to be inspired on the remote view practice"

but; if you don't have see the film.. do you really think you're the right man for delete something (partially) quoted about this? don't you think that is good to check if what you want delete is true or not, instead delete it for excessive zeal?

..i mean, wikipedia is a place where people do edit with good faith, doing the best about the right rules to do this; not a war-game place.

regards. --5.170.46.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monsta X update

Hi co-editor! I viewed all the edits made by all editors and I compared all the info. they provided since I did all the research and I find this one editor you suspect me of. The editor you suspect me of provided all the updated info. and compared it to what I gathered and what you reverted. If you want, you can make it in what you think is the best for the page but please don't change the info. provided. If you want the exact sources, I can provide it to you. Thank you Robanvee.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robvanvee&oldid=926560045"