Talk:Rising Appalachia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is substantially different than the previous page that was flagged for deletion. In this new version I have added more external information to show the importance of this musical band. I have also been given permission by the band to use their images but the permission is via Facebook. I've just asked them for an email with permission. Please give me a few days to correct this. --Martiniano (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me time. The band will begin making updates directly soon. Martiniano (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Source[edit] is a blog and does not meet the criteria of a Wikipedia reliable source. The album is self published as well.

Edit in question:

  • Wider Circles (2015, independent self-release)[1] (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your harassment. That's all I'm going to say. Skyerise (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel that way seriously, I'm only curious about the source of the edit from a different user on Rising Appalachia (above). It's not personal. I discovered this band from the edits over at Game of Thrones. It looks very interesting. I hope we can keep Wikipedia from anything that's not professional or civil-minded. It should be fun. In all sincerity, thank you for listening. (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand the restriction against blogs. Only personal, self-published blogs are unreliable. A topical blog with multiple contributors and an editorial policy is allowed. Your harassment has been reported. Bugger off. Skyerise (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I had an opportunity to visit the music blog you want to use as a reference. See
Here's the Wikipedia policy about the proper use of blogs: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
Here's how the blog describes itself: "A magazine by the fans for the fans, Appalachian Jamwich has taken the region by storm and we have dedicated ourselves to bringing the scene we love and care about to the general public. GET JAMWICHED!"
It doesn't appear that the blog meets the Wikiepdia requirements of (1) established news outlet, (2) writers are professional journalists (3) or the writers are "established experts in the field".
Can you find another source por favor? Also, I want to thank you for bringing this up as I needed a refresher in reliable sources. Cheers! (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The criteria you quote are for exceptions to the personal blog rule, not a general rule for blogs. For example, we can use the personal blog when the owner is an otherwise recognized published expert. For news-type blogs, the rule is that it can't be open contributions, there has to be an editorial staff that selects writers. That's the case for "Appalachia Jamband" see: [1]. It also has a print edition with multiple distribution locations throughout eight states (WV, DC, VA, NC, MD, PA, OH & NY): [2]. This is a real music news source.
You are welcome to find an additional supporting citation yourself if you feel it is inadequate. Or you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It still doesn't meet the three requirements of (1) established news outlet, (2) writers are professional journalists (3) or the writers are "established experts in the field". As you know we are required to remove OR immediately. Please support the goals of the site and don't ask me to go out and do your research for you. (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, it does. I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). Skyerise (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── a law case isn't relevant here, Wikipedia policy is. I think it's best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is: look it up. But go ahead, take it to the noticeboard. I used to be a regular there and have no doubt the source is adequate. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and they may be a bit peeved at you if there is an additional source that meets your exaggerated criteria which they find right away. If you are here to improve Wikipedia rather than to harass me, you won't fail to make that search first, will you? Skyerise (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We've established that you mistook me and this IP for somebody else today. It's important to keep up the integrity of the sources on the site. It's a matter of principle that I won't do your research for you. (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that we've established that. I still think you are the original harasser. You might want to remember that we use the duck test for such matters: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". If your behavior is the same as the previous harasser, our sockpuppet policy says that for all intents and purposes you are the original harasser. And if that determination is made, you have already been banned from editing Wikipedia. I'd take care not to give the appearance of being the same editor by doing the same kinds of things. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I welcome a Sock Puppetry test if that will make you happy. But I think that it will just waste everybody's time. And I think you'll agree that none of us need that! I'm going to sign-off here for now until further notice to make you feel more comfortable. Best wishes. (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have experience in that area as well. When I've gathered sufficient similarity data, I'll submit the necessary reports. Skyerise (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)