This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:78.26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Lindström (musician)[edit]

Hi 78.26,
The outcome of the AFD discussion was delete, but the article is still live in mainspace, with no deletion recorded in its history.
Anna Lindström (musician) has been tagged for WP:G4, but as it hasn't actually been deleted, technically that criterion doesn't apply.
Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shirt58: see [1]. I deleted it on June 25 per the AfD discussion. When I saw that it was re-created apparently with no change from the deleted version, I accidentally deleted it again yesterday, whereupon I restored it because my intent was to nominate it for G4 to give another admin (or other uninvolved editor) a chance to review. Is the public log for the page not displaying for you? Looks like a bug to report. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Carmen y Laura[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 5 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carmen y Laura, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carmen y Laura, sisters who formed a duo for mostly Tejano music, learned to harmonize by singing together while doing chores in separate rooms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carmen y Laura. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carmen y Laura), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help with a music DYK[edit]

I'm reviewing a music DYK, and I am struggling with an editor on close paraphrasing due to a literal translation from German. Would you be willing to help at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Hofstetter? Thank you in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I'm not quite sure how I can help. I have had the privilege of working with Gerda many times, so I'm positively certain the issues will be resolved. I have a couple of questions. The German article dates to 2006. Is there any way to tell how old the operamusica site is? If the operamusica site translated the German Wikipedia language the way Gerda did, there may not be a copyvio issue. I'm not nearly as concerned about the Bach-cantatas matching, it is either common phrasing (which could be easily changed if deemed necessary) or proper names. Let's figure out the operamusica mystery first. That said, do you have some specific ideas on how I may be of assistance? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears that Opera Musica is using Wikipedia verbatim. Is there some policy to quote on the DYK to say it's okay to proceed? Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Another question for my own reference, since the www.operamusica.com credits Wikipedia as a source, do I need to add them at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks under How to list new mirrors? Flibirigit (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Flibirigit: There's no "official" wording, just note in the DYK review that operamusica is a Wikipedia mirror, so the match should be discarded as irrelevant. I don't know that you need to add it to the list, but it would be helpful to editors going forward (particularly those like Gerda who work heavily in opera-related articles.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dana Data.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dana Data.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Bird impressionists[edit]

My interest in Joe Belmont was somewhat peripheral to my interests in birds and ornithology and I found that bird impressionism as a performing art was an extinct form with several popular names including Charles_Kellogg_(naturalist), Edward Avis, Percy Edwards, and Charles Crawford Gorst. Oddly, we do not have a specific category for these artists. I look forward to see your improvements to the article on a little-known talents from another age (one reason why it sold in the past was apparently that whistles recorded and replayed with better fidelity than voice with the early technology). Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shyamal: That is correct. Lots of whistling records from the era because it recorded well using the acoustic process (pre-microphone). Have you heard any of these old recordings? Some are available on youtube and archive.org, but I can send an email with a couple of cylinder record recordings featuring this type of whistling from my own collection, if you want. Creating a category of bird imitators is easy, but I'm not sure how to categorize the category! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have indeed heard the recordings - some of the stage artists impressions do not match well with those of the real birds (esp. when you examine the sonograms) but does not take away from their amazing skills. I think the issue is that Category:bird impressionists would be too small and it would need to nest inside an even smaller Category:Animal impressionists which was why I just placed them in a broader category. Shyamal (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi Protect the page Okyeame Kwame[edit]

How can I semi protect the page Okyeame Kwame because of vandalism issues. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneth Graham (talkcontribs) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Keneth Graham:, normally you'd go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I've had a look at that page, but I don't see the recent vandalism you are referring to. In my opinion the page doesn't need protection. What edits are causing your concern? All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks yet again, Gerda! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

We Were Here (video game) sandbox?[edit]

Hey 78.26, I saw that the page for We Were Here series was deleted. I had actually been intending to rework it since it was not the highest quality - you said in the talk page that you could restore it to a sandbox state on request? I'm not an expert wikipedian so I hope this is the right place to ask! I was thinking of only making a page for We Were Here Too, since it has more sources as a commercial game rather than a free product like the original. Tgoodfellow (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tgoodfellow:  Done Please check User:Tgoodfellow/We Were Here (game). I hope that helps! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Castle Lake (Washington)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 13 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castle Lake (Washington), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Castle Lake (pictured) was created by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castle Lake (Washington). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Castle Lake (Washington)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability of record labels[edit]

I've had a discussion with Chubbles about determining notability of record labels. He referred to a link of a discussion, which I read. I disagree that having notable musicians on a label makes the label notable. I disagree that notability is inherited. I disagree that WP:Music should be used for a label's notability rather than WP:Corp. It benefits no one to bring in standards outside Wikipedia to judge articles when Wikipedia's rules themselves are sufficient and sufficiently complex to get the job done. It benefits no one to abstract from the situation, to open a philosophical discussion about the nature of importance, prominence, and cultural significance, which in turn will lead to greater web-like entanglements, debate, and confusion. All we need to know is in the particulars. There's no need to be make notability more complicated.

Chubbles has an agenda. Wikipedia isn't supposed to have them. The more we stretch definitions to suit our preferences and interests, the less accurate those definitions become, and the less useful Wikipedia becomes.

I've seen many people decorate their pages with work "they" have done. I use quotation marks because there's no such thing as private property on Wikipedia. No one owns an article. No one person is responsible for an article. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Anyone can change any article, and anyone will. Having a list of articles "I created" or "I worked on" is a stone's throw from "My articles", which they are not, as the documentation states. It isn't "your work", and even if it were, it's a good life lesson and a hard one to accept that one's work can be erased at any time for any reason. But I find it an unavoidable truth. To try to avoid it is to stick one's head in the sand. We're not building a cathedral here that will last for generations. Everything on the internet is ephemeral and could disappear tomorrow. The more ephemeral the content, the easier it will be to wipe away. The more ephemeral the content, the less credible Wikipedia is. The job of an editor is to be more discriminating, not less.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) Did you see the vacation notice on top? - I see a big difference between "I created" which is a fact that stays in an article's history even if that article changes by many, and "my article", and think this user doesn't need to be told. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Vmavanti: @Gerda Arendt: @Chubbles: I have been semi-watching that conversation on Chubbles's page, so I'm somewhat familiar with how the discussion is going, and it isn't much different than larger conversations that have been going on for a decade or more. I think that the most important thing to remember is that reasonable editors who are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia can and do disagree about the best approach to improvement. Civil discussion is a healthy thing, and particularly when editors have an open mind and listen as well as share their opinion. To address a few points, I don't think it's fair, and it is a borderline personal attack, to state that Chubbles has an "agenda". What agenda? Inclusionism? Could then someone say you (Vmavanti) have an "agenda" of deletionism? That would also be unfair. There have always been "deletionists" and "inclusionists" here at Wikipedia, and this place is best when people of differing inclinations discuss their reasoning and a consensus emerges about a particular topic. Therefore, try not to be frustrated merely because an editor does not see things your way. There are many editors here, fellow administrators even, who often see things differently than I do. That doesn't make me right and them wrong, nor the other way around. For what it's worth, right now the deletionists are more vocal at AfD discussions, and I know you've been told to view things a certain way many times by those editors, but that doesn't make that viewpoint "right."
In my opinion, editors have lately been spending too much effort trying to fit everything into "da rulz", when in fact "da rulz" are actually guidelines meant to help editors think about what is notable, rather than being a hard set of barriers. In my opinion, Chubbles has it mostly correct regarding record labels. Yes, record labels are "corporations" (or some side business run out of mom's garage), but their function is different than most business. They're not like a canned beans producer, or someone who makes light fixtures. They produce "art", very loosely defined. Since there's not a definitive set of "rulz" for record labels, what makes WP:COMMONSENSE notability? Record labels are known for their product, and the influence they have on artists and musical trends. By precedent (and common sense in my opinion) this is best measured by the number of notable artists issued by a record label (and not counting re-issues in general), or sometimes by length of history if a label is dedicated to a more obscure genre. These guidelines are more important for older, pre-internet labels. In all cases information must be verifiable.
Of course, record label articles have their problems. Particularly for "current" labels, they are rife with promotionalism of the worst kind. When dealing with a label that lists several notable artists, you need to watch for walled gardens, something I've failed to catch in the past. Many articles that meet "GNG" are less notable than other labels that don't meet that guideline, because they have a marketing person who's very good at inserting material into current media.
In short, it's complicated.
Ultimately, I'm not trying to change your mind, Vmavanti. Your volunteer work here is extremely valuable, and I'm very glad you have volunteered your time here to make the encyclopedia better. I have the same words for Chubbles (but he's been around quite a bit longer than I have).
I am on the other side of the country from my residence at the moment, so this is by necessity briefer and less complete than I'd like. Undoubtedly I'll think of something more clever to say at 2AM next morning. You, Chubbles, and myself are far more interested in record labels than the average editor. Therefore I take both your and Chubbles' opinion into deeper consideration when discussing labels, because you both know what you're talking about there. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I did see the vacation note, but I wanted to write something while it was fresh in my mind. I didn't expect a response for another week. I agree that discussion is a good thing. I have nothing against Chubbles, our discussion was civil, and I'm glad to be able to talk to someone about these matters on an above average level. I certainly don't question his intelligence. I don't see agenda as an evil word and I don't intend it as a personal attack. I don't question his good intent. I think his ideas in this case are the opposite of notability. But everyone has biases. A better editor is conscious of them and tries to reign them in, but that tends to come with age and experience. I have read what seems like many autobiographical articles at WP and articles by people with a conflict of interest. I've read many articles by fans of the subject. The temptation to fight for your guy, your cause, to engage in cheerleading is great, and I see it every day. The temptation probably increases the more time one spends on Wikipedia, so perhaps it is something everyone has to struggle with.
So far no one has called me a deletionist. I don't consider myself either a deletionist or an inclusionist, and the creation and use of those words strikes me as silly but unsurprising. I was never very good at joining clubs. I judge each case one at a time. Nevertheless, it would be odd to be an editor and never do any changing or deleting. I've known copy editors who felt that if they didn't change something then they weren't doing their job. One other note: The trend in our time has been toward independence rather than emphasis on labels. Many musicians have their own labels. There are are also crowd sourced labels such as Artistshare. Billboard magazine is a shell of what it used to be.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Regarding your last sentence, never a truer word was spoken. And you are correct, the scope and intent of record labels has changed drastically in the last 15 years. When I see that a label is "online release only" I immediately think it is non-notable, but as you said we all have our biases, so I have to watch against that. There are some notable "web-only" labels, no matter that it rankles me.
I didn't address your question about decorating their pages about "their" work. You've undoubtedly noticed that I have such material on my user page. For me, it is for a couple reasons. Part of it is like a photo album, it reminds me where I started, some things I've done, some people I've worked with. Good times, and a few lessons learned along the way. It also helps people know who I am, what I like to work on, and probably warns them of my biases. I don't claim to "own" any of these articles. Ha, if I did, then The Baskerville Hounds wouldn't be such a mess <self-righteous snort>. Other editors have their own reasons for posting such material, but I do my best to be careful about judging the motivations of others. I concern myself about behavior in article editing, not what people put on their user pages. Except promotion, I will immediately delete blatant advertising on user pages.
The only other point is that I think the word "agenda" has connotations here on Wikipedia that I think you did not intend. I don't see you at the drama boards, so that is understandable, but please know that "agenda" is usually associated with self-promotion or WP:POV-pushing, and therefore might draw an unexpected strong response.
All the best, happy editing, and I really do hope I've been (and will continue to be) helpful (to all) on some level. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello again![edit]

I was pleasantly surprised to see your ID pop up in a "thank" message for the David Street article. I hope that you are doing well. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie! Glad to hear from you as always. I've been putting "projects" on my user page, and David Street was one of those articles I'd been planning to write for years, but never got around to. I saw 'twas a blue link, so I investigated to make sure it was the same person. So glad you beat me to it two years ago, I always learn a lot when I read your work. All the best! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about my work. Had it not been for your encouragement and the tips that you gave me four years ago, I might not have stayed with working on Wikipedia. I enjoy doing research, creating articles, and adding to existing articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaLYmblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Advice about title[edit]

I need your advice about what title to use for a new article. I have just begun work on User:Teblick/Stan Jones (actor, born 1914) tonight. Wikipedia already has an article, Stan Jones (actor), about an actor by that name who was born in Canada, whereas the one I'm writing about was born in Arizona. I considered using "Stan Jones (American-born actor)", but I've read some discussions recently about "American" having a broader concept than the United States. I decided to use the birth year just so that I could start work. He also wrote some songs, so another possibility would be "Stan Jones (actor-songwriter)". What are your thoughts? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops! You can ignore the paragraph above. I just found Stan Jones (songwriter), which is about the man I have in mind. I failed to spot that item in the disambiguation list. Now I will see if I can use the sources that I had lined up and add material to the existing article. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lydia May Ames[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Lydia May Ames at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlackCoin_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

Hello 78.26.

I am new to Wikipedia. I was trying to find the Blackcoin wikipedia page, but it was deleted by you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlackCoin_(2nd_nomination)

I tried to understand why it was deleted, but I cannot.

Are you able to explain more about this deletion?

Many thanks Michel

It was deleted by community consensus, per the discussion page you link to. In a nutshell, it was the communities decision that no independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources was found on the topic to indicate the topic is worthy of encyclopedic attention. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

184.153.147.204[edit]

Hello. I am sorry to bother you but I think my aiv report of user:184.153.147.204 requires immediate attention because it involves a threat of violence. CLCStudent (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

((edit conflict) times 2) Done - you just caught me before I'm going to be offline for a few hours. I don't think this reaches oversight level, but I'm pinging Drmies for a second opinion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that the threat was most likely empty, but I do not take chances with that kind of stuff. CLCStudent (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • 78.26, I fully agree with RD3; thank you. That was creepy. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)