User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Duffbeerforme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
You found and offered a number of sources at the AFD. Could you include them in the article as citations? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Cuba at a cross roads
Hi duffbeerforme,
I thought that the references which I stated in the article Cuba at a Cross Roads were enough to show the notability of the book. Can you guide me to what kind of references should I give in order to stop the deletion? As for WP:GOODREFS the citation to the verifications were accurate (though given by the author himself). The book is new and has covered a lot of attention among the readers. That is why I created the article.
As for Daniel Bruno Sanz self published references, I thought that the author of the book is in the best shape to write a review on it. I might be totally wrong as you have given quite a detailed answer on article's entry. Can you guide me as to what can I do in order to stop the deletion. I'll really appreciate it. I have no intention to promote this book in any way.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Find some significant coverage about the book in reliable sources by people who are independent of the book. The author and people trying to sell the book are not independent. The author of the book is not in the best shape to write a review as he is trying to promote the book, get it read and is biased. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay!!! thanks a lot Duffbeerforme. I'll look for some sources and if I find some, I'll put them in the article.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- I have added some more independent references whose authors are different. Can you check them and tell me whether it's okay or not? And by the way, thanks for supporting me on Order of elm and key debate. It was my first nomination for deletion. :)
Thanks
--Inlandmamba (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- I guess you missed the "about the book" bit. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have added some more independent references whose authors are different. Can you check them and tell me whether it's okay or not? And by the way, thanks for supporting me on Order of elm and key debate. It was my first nomination for deletion. :)
- Okay!!! thanks a lot Duffbeerforme. I'll look for some sources and if I find some, I'll put them in the article.
(I posted here a message originally inserted in the article by the user DazzBand.) --Ardsarea (talk)
Hello duffbeerforme, please dont be unfair and pre-judge a book you have not read and have never seen. The article is not promotional because the book is not for sale. Money is not involved here. The book is given away for free on the Internet. See for your self and download the book. The book is a non-profit, humanitarian, academic work and it was a group effort that took a year to produce. It was not written for the general reader and that is why its not on the New York Times list of books and similar web sites. The book has been vetted by Columbia and Brown universities scholars in the U.S.A. and a top expert on Communism endorsed the book. The book has been published in the Spanish language. What more do you demand? The author of the article has provided 23 references. Maybe some of the references are not ideal, but that is because you are pressuring him to insert more and more references in an attempt to satisfy your demands. In addition, you have attacked another article by the same author and put it on the deletion list. Again, that book is a piece of scholarship accepted by academics. It is not fiction or popular reading. That book is given away for free as well and it is relevant to American politics in 2012. We ask that you cease and desist from questioning the legitimacy of book you have never seen. Let scholars decide what they think is worthy. DazzBand (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested. In light of the history, I thought AfD might be advisable. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I am the one who initiated the Level Pi page. I am a German living in Australia where there is next to none coverage of "classic" electronic music in the Berlin School sense. Level Pi's music combines the Berlin School with guitar sounds a la Pink Floyd which I believe is a new and unique style which warrants exposure in the English Wikipedia. As the article states, Level-Pi's 1st CD was published in 2006 under the Garden of Delights label and his 2nd on the Musea label. Both important labels for krautrock and electronic/progressive music. Level Pi's music was reviewed in magazines and e-zines important to this kind of music ("Exposé Magazine", "babyblaue-seiten.de", "backgroundmagazine.nl", "empulsiv.de" and others mentioned in the reference list). I am against the proposal for deletion as this article presents an artist which warrants exposure in Wikipedia. Moreover, all references are from reliable sources as far as I can tell. It would be a loss if this article is not available anymore as it gives some attention to this fascinating kind of music and particularly this artist. Please let me know what should/could be included to meet the standards. Phoenix69 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This passive-aggressive behavior needs to stop. Please, either drop the stick entirely, or start a FAR/GAR/article RFC if you believe so strongly about this matter. Please stop revert warring over the matter while refusing to listen to what other editors' opinions are on the matter. --Rschen7754 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop removing valid tags. If you disagree with longstanding Wikipedia policies please start a discussion on the releveant policy talk page. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation of said longstanding Wikipedia policies. --Rschen7754 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."" WP:SYN. What is wrong with my interpretation? duffbeerforme (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation of said longstanding Wikipedia policies. --Rschen7754 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for mis-stating or mis-representing the intentions of this wiki entry. The creation of the Creative Nation wiki page is in no way an attempt to advertise or promote the company. Creative Nation is not a company that is selling a product, nor is it a company promoting a service. Rather, it is a private, US music publishing company, that represents a group of distinguished songwriters and musicians, and does not accept unsolicited requests. With the recent announcement of a partnership with Universal Music Publishing Group a separate wiki entry seems necessary. I ask that any proposal to delete this entry be re-considered, and I'm happy to improve the page further, if that would make a difference. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this statement (Jpoindex (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please see this edit where I corrected my error in the edit history of the page. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
El Obo
I've had to decline the BLPPROD here, due to the specific nature of WP:BLPPROD#Nominating. The article is still eligible for regular PRODs and/or AfD. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Deletion
I have opened up a new deletion for Skip the Foreplay, it is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skip the Foreplay (2nd nomination); I decided this AfD deserves another chance since the one you opened up only got two votes and it's all for a band that doesn't even have near enough notability for an article on here. • GunMetal Angel 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Drake Jensen
Hello There,
I am glad to see you have taken up the Drake Jensen cause! I assume when people start vandalizing or adding Non-WP:BIO material (again, I should say) to the pages you will be there to edit them. Thanks! -Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Article for deletion: Market_Theatre_(Ledbury)
Hi Duffbeerforme, I'm mystified why you deleted this article - and what criteria you use to consider which articles have merit and which don't..
Referring back to the Ledbury page (where you redirected the Market Theatre article), there are other Wiki links that have equal merit and still stand, eg. Ledbury Town Football Club, The Big Chill. Also, the two 'Market Theatres' that remain intact on the Market Theatre disambiguation page are of no more (or less) merit than the one in Ledbury. Superstevegs (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't delete that article. I redirected it. The afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Theatre (Ledbury) decide it shouild not have a stand alone article. If you want to merge some of the old article it is available in the history. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Michael Greiner 16:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Make Me Famous (band)
The album peaked on #151 in Billboard Top 200 Charts (see HERE). No signification? O.o --Goroth (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I've reconsidered, and I'm afraid that ultimately the answer is still no. Your point of view, that the sources provided did not confer notability, was clearly in the minority. While I'm sure that you feel that your argument is bulletproof, quite clearly the others participating in the AFD did not agree. I am confident that a "no consensus" close was the appropriate call to make. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
Speedy deletion criterion G11
Go and read the criterion. If you still believe it applies to the sandboxes you nominated for deletion, we can get into a deeper discussion of what it says/doesn't say. WilyD 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the criterion. Sandboxes or not they are obviously promotional. Declining G
(4)11 saying they are not promotional is ?. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)- Apparently not. Promotional isn't "has some promotional bits", but "is a promotion in such a way that deleting the promotional bits would leave nothing at all" - which doesn't apply here (nor does the concept of "rewrite to an encyclopaedic standard" really make sense in a sandbox context). G4 is also sparsely applied to userspace, userfying articles to improve them is allowed/encouraged - beyond which, all the article in question are at MfD - there's no particular need to delete something immediately that'll be judged more thoroughly over the next few days anyhow. WilyD 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry meant G11. Putting that aside. No. That's exclusively promotional. You declined because it's "not promotional", when it clearly is.Not that it was not exclusively so. When taking into account this was pasted in by four different accounts it is clear that this is placed here for promotion. Looking only at an individual page one might be more lenient but four accounts pasting the same thing screams promotion is the goal. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not exclusively promotional. Cut away the promotional bits, and there's plenty of article left. Beyond which, userspace is a little bit different, because of the "rewrite to encyclopaedic standards" point. My userpage has all the barnstars people have awarded me, and brags about when I've written articles that were featured by Did You Know?, or are classed as Good or Featured articles. Clearly promotional bits. But the context is what it is. WilyD 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- "It's not exclusively promotional." Then why not say that? Why instead say something that was clearly not true? Your userpage is different. It is not intended to be a mainspace article. It is not promotion by four single purpose accounts. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the context of declining a G11, the short phrase "not promotional" should be read as "not exclusively promotional", rather than "contains absolutely no bits which could be interpreted as promotional". "Not promotional" is not an untrue statement. Less precise than it could be, sure. Userfying a promotional article, toning it down, then moving back to the mainspace is a perfectly reasonable & acceptable thing to do. Especially for a new editor, for whom writing in a NPOV style isn't a skill they've yet acquired. WilyD 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is an untrue statement. It was clearly promotional. More precise it should be. New editors should be given some latitude but when there is a clear attempt to deceive then that grace should be withdrawn. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- At a minimum, a day or two to clear up problematic promotional language on an article that's been userfied is harsh - it's giving virtually no latitude at all. But "not promotional" remains a true statement - it was not promotional in the meaning implied by nominating for speedy deletion as "promotional". Multiple account situation probably merits investigation, but is neither here nor there with respect to whether it's promotional. Nor with respect to whether the text was a reasonable use of a sandbox. Nor with respect to whether it was userfied to have a chance to bring it into a NPOV. WilyD 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- "not promotional" remains a false statement. Put it in whatever context you like. These pages are promotional, both in their intent and their language. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's start at the start "It was a dream that was just waiting to happen.". duffbeerforme (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- At a minimum, a day or two to clear up problematic promotional language on an article that's been userfied is harsh - it's giving virtually no latitude at all. But "not promotional" remains a true statement - it was not promotional in the meaning implied by nominating for speedy deletion as "promotional". Multiple account situation probably merits investigation, but is neither here nor there with respect to whether it's promotional. Nor with respect to whether the text was a reasonable use of a sandbox. Nor with respect to whether it was userfied to have a chance to bring it into a NPOV. WilyD 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is an untrue statement. It was clearly promotional. More precise it should be. New editors should be given some latitude but when there is a clear attempt to deceive then that grace should be withdrawn. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the context of declining a G11, the short phrase "not promotional" should be read as "not exclusively promotional", rather than "contains absolutely no bits which could be interpreted as promotional". "Not promotional" is not an untrue statement. Less precise than it could be, sure. Userfying a promotional article, toning it down, then moving back to the mainspace is a perfectly reasonable & acceptable thing to do. Especially for a new editor, for whom writing in a NPOV style isn't a skill they've yet acquired. WilyD 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- "It's not exclusively promotional." Then why not say that? Why instead say something that was clearly not true? Your userpage is different. It is not intended to be a mainspace article. It is not promotion by four single purpose accounts. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not exclusively promotional. Cut away the promotional bits, and there's plenty of article left. Beyond which, userspace is a little bit different, because of the "rewrite to encyclopaedic standards" point. My userpage has all the barnstars people have awarded me, and brags about when I've written articles that were featured by Did You Know?, or are classed as Good or Featured articles. Clearly promotional bits. But the context is what it is. WilyD 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry meant G11. Putting that aside. No. That's exclusively promotional. You declined because it's "not promotional", when it clearly is.Not that it was not exclusively so. When taking into account this was pasted in by four different accounts it is clear that this is placed here for promotion. Looking only at an individual page one might be more lenient but four accounts pasting the same thing screams promotion is the goal. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently not. Promotional isn't "has some promotional bits", but "is a promotion in such a way that deleting the promotional bits would leave nothing at all" - which doesn't apply here (nor does the concept of "rewrite to an encyclopaedic standard" really make sense in a sandbox context). G4 is also sparsely applied to userspace, userfying articles to improve them is allowed/encouraged - beyond which, all the article in question are at MfD - there's no particular need to delete something immediately that'll be judged more thoroughly over the next few days anyhow. WilyD 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I started this page to cover this designer, part of the Icelandic and international modern design movement. There are over 110.000 articles on google about this designer, and he is very well known in the fashion and product design industries and in the press. He has been published in numerous books, and collaborated with other notable artists, designers and musicians, all who are on wikipedia. Many other designers reference this person as an influence on their work. This article is definitely not an advertisement, and was definitely written sourced from other articles online. This article should not be deleted, nor edited down from it's original format. This article highlights one of the few internationally known Icelandic based designers, who happens to be the leading designer in Iceland. Like the user below, please let me know what should/could be included to meet the standards. Sawwater (talk) 017:30, 26 July 2012
—Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Help with an article?
Hiya! I've come across you in various AfDs and I need a little help with one right now. It concerns a self-published/indie book called The Daisy Chain. The argument is starting to get a little heated, but not enough to where I really feel comfortable bringing it to the admin board. I'm not asking you to vote either way or back me up, just to take a look at the argument going back and forth and sort of mediate a little.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
reversion
Hi. Perry Glasser here. I've put up a comment in Talk on the Perry Glasser page, and will say much the same here. I've published or have forthcoming 5 books--none from vanity presses. I've won numerous literary awards. I am one of 7 literary Fellows in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; I've been in residence at the Norman Mailer Colony, as a fellow. All those facts are cited and documented at the Wiki entry. Does anyone actually read the stuff, or is the criterion: "I never heard of this dude so therefore he cannot be worthy." My page is not an ad. I am not in control of how many incoming links there are. If you insist, I can get someone to log in and put up the same information--would that constitute more contributors? No snarkiness, but all I am saying is that your criteria are arbitrary and are being arbitrarily applied. Deleting the material may not be "helpful" but if when I adjust the entry no one reads the new or additional material, what would be helpful? You tell me, please. In my Talk I refer you to two other entries--why aren't they problematic? My career predates the Internet, but you guys seem to insist that nothing happened in the world to breathing human beings before 1990, events for which you will find no links as "evidence." Would you prefer a list of journals with no links to them as Lee K. Abbott does? This entry is not my resume, but it is a source of information. No one wishes more fervently than I do that more people did visit the site, but this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of frequently accessed web pages. Reread the entry, please. Perryglasser (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Amongst the tags you removed is the coi tag. You clearly have a conflict of interest. You should not remove that tag. Your natural bias also puts you in a poor position to judge the state of the article. You removed a primary sources tag. As it stands your article is sourced by many primary sources, your site *4, two of your publishers sites, two of your employers sites, an article written by you. The majority of sources. The primary sources tag clearly applies. You remove a BLP call for more citations. The article contains unsourced personal information about a living person, that tag clearly applies. Given these clear problems with your edits and you clear coi I restored all maintainance tags. Regarding the other two entries you mention, bad entries do not justify this one being bad, if bad entries exist thenfix or remove them seperately, this one needs to be judged on it's own (WP:OTHERSTUFF). From a quick look I think they are problematic and intend to have a proper look at them.duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
so this is OK? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Cummins If by coi you mean that the person who creates the entry should not be the subject of the entry, all you do is create a market for professional Wikipedia entry makers. Nor did I create the entry--though I have updated it to answer the "noteworthy" issue. But after 5 books, a major fellowship, and several other awards, you still find it insufficiently noteworthy. I look at other entries for models, so when you have those "proper looks," consider that if you insist that updating and origination cannot be done by the subject without coi, then the many, many entries about contemporary writers who deservedly are within Wikipedia will need their entries deleted. Come, when in the past 2 years I was named a Fellow of Massachusetts, of the Norman Mailer Colony, and of the Virginia Colony for the Creative Arts, who else could add that new information? I will be happy to delete links to my employers, but for every site in Wikipedia I see for academics where I look for models, there are links to their employers. It's not as though I work for Goodyear and am trying to sell auto tires. Restoring a vague boilerplate header that has been addressed is not especially helpful. I look at other entries for models, and you respond that those are not good, either. What good is that response? Standards unequally applied are arbitrary self-appointed editors making up punitive rules as they go along. To be sure I understand your notion of a source: If a writer is awarded the Pulitzer Prize, would you prefer a citation to a secondary source--such as her hometown newspaper--or the primary source, which would be the Pulitzer Committee at Columbia University? If I am named a Fellow in Massachusetts, would you prefer a secondary source like my local newspaper, or is the link and note to the State superior? For specifics: There are no references to self-published sources. Not one. If the close connection to the subject is that I am maintaining the entry, if you wish I'll find someone else to do that work. Since you dislike primary sources, exactly how does one offer citations for verification? I link to the state of Massachusetts profile of me: is that verification of their award or will you complain that is a primary source? If five books and major grants and more than 50 published fictions in noteworthy literary journals do not establish notability, what does? I could list them--link free-like Lee K. Abbott's entry, but if you then some back and say his is a poor entry, all we are doing is going around and around in a circle trying to approach a standard no one else seems held to. If I am a poor source to judge the entry because of what you claim is a bias, find one line unsupported by fact. Just one. There is not a normative word in the entry, though you seem to believe you can attach a word like "bias" and do not need to offer an iota of evidence. That is simply offensive.
Perryglasser (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Re Ann Cummins, no it's not, but have a read of WP:OTHERCRAP. Your argument about many, many entries about contemporary writers needing deletion does not hold water. Re "find one line unsupported by fact." - The articles second sentence, "Glasser’s imaginative work often explores the diminishing options of characters undergoing emotional stress until their only remaining choice is violence; his memoirs and essays illuminate questions of how we live now." An unsourced peice of puffery. Re self published sources. Who publishes your website? Re COI, no it doesn't create a market for professional Wikipedia entry makers, it stops wikipedia being inundated with biased vanity pices on random individuals. Re Primary sources, if someone wins a pulitzer then it is best to souces it to an independent reliable sources. You ask on the Talk:Perry Glasser pageabout "or that the Boston Globe is not a responsible 3rd party?" It's not independent, you wrote that article. What establishes notability, read WP:N. Find independent reliable sources that write about you. Not going on about awards from your publishes, counts of boos published and residencies. See also WP:TLDR. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am trying to suit. Please notice that awards from small publishers are often competitive, as are Fellowship residences, and as such constitute a claim to notability. When 1,000 people submit manuscripts, and only one wins, that's probably more notable than having an agent who duns 50 publishers. Directly below this field, there is a demand for verifiability: it's simply not possible to verify something written by a writer (ie, a review) without references to the thing itself, that is the writer wrote, though at your insistence I've deleted the reference to an article at the Boston Globe because I wrote it. How else shall I verify that I have written for the Globe? People do write about my work--exactly how would I refer to their reviews or award citations without resorting to sourced "puffery?" You'd have writers quoting dust jacket blurbs. Would reviews at Amazon qualify? (I hope not!) Best. Perryglasser (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- An over reliance on primary sources doesn't mean you should remove all primary source, it means you should add independent reliable sources about you. If people write about your work then that's what should be used. No, amazon reviews are not good. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's what is used. As far as I can see, the entry meets specs. Let me know when the tags will be removed. Perryglasser (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: List of artists who have worked with Mucho-Bravado
Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of artists who have worked with Mucho-Bravado, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not really promotional. should almost certainly be deleted but we should use PROD/AFD. (I will put a PROD on it). Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I can't think of a policy based reason for deletion... I'm still fairly sure it doesn't belong, but can you come up with a reason? SmartSE (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- If it wasn't added to the afd then speedy g8 would have got rid of it. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Flynn (author)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Moved from user page
Sorry, I didn't see your warning! Won't happen again, I'll doublecheck history next time.ZeroOneThousand (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC) It appears more people are trying to take down the AFD tag off the NEStalgia wikipedia page. Should you contact an administrator? I'm not certain how to.ZeroOneThousand (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll do it now. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- [1]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Now protected to stop removal. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- [1]. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Goodvac (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Article deletion: Kraken Up (album)
You recently replaced an article about a band's album with a redirect to the band itself. Although redirects are a legitimate alternative to deletion, the manual says you should first merge the content from the page you want to delete into the page you want to redirect it to. Since you didn't do that in this case, you have essentially deleted the content without following due process. I agree with your statement that this album is insufficiently notable to justify a separate page, but it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion A7 or A9, so the deletion process should be followed.
Instead, I propose to merge the album information into the band's page. I would be happy to do that myself, and I will do the same for their other albums (which you didn't delete, but which clearly suffer from the same questionable notability). Would that be acceptable to you? Johnson487682 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- What content should I merge? It exists. That is stated in the band's article. Nothing about it is sourced by independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- If nothing else, there was information about what songs were on which albums. (It's been a while since I've seen those articles so I don't recall what was in the articles. I didn't write them.)Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- As a side note, while you may question the album's notablity, there's no question that the band is notable.Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In August you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider nominating it at AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Undeletion of Southern Stars poster
Thanks for pointing this out to me. See [2] & [3]. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Merging Project64
It might not have been your intention, but your edit removed content from Project64. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Thank you. -118.208.175.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- He's doing it to be a wikinazi. I've already rewritten a good portion of the article to bring into line with what it should be and its absolutely rediculous that only project64 is getting this kind of continued nonsense while other emulators aren't getting targetted at all, whilst including even LESS information. 124.170.226.210 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- totaly rediculous? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- The fact you can't even spell is another good reason you have no business touching wikipedia.124.170.226.210 (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- totaly rediculous? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Links to External MusicXML Scores
It looks like you went though an eliminated all external links to MusicXML scores at Open Music Score under the pretense of link spam, which I hardly see it as such. Can you provide detail as to why you feel that way? Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:LINKSPAM. When an editor suddenly creates a page for a site and adds lots of external links for that site into other articles it can look very much like linkspamming. External links should add to the understanding of the subject, none of these did, they just provided a different format for their scores so the links did not belong yet were added to >20 pages. Link spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article was deleted and deemed "unworthy" of an article unto itself. I'm perfectly okay with that. It does not mean that the links added do not have value. The fact that they were in a different format (and the most open format possible) is, in fact, significant. If you doubt the significance of a MusicXML repository and the scores they contain, then I question your understanding of the subject. If you are firm that MusicXML repositories are of no significance, then feel free to remove all references to The Sheet Music Project at Project Gutenberg, as that repository is half the size of Open Music Score. After reading the link you referred to, I can see how someone might see it as link spamming. That was certainly not my intent. I simply see the reference as value added. Ngreen2001 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of MusicXML is irrelevant. Another format of scores does not add to the understanding of Bach. The links are also rich media sites, something to avoid. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- From an education standpoint MusicXML can contribute greatly to the understanding of any composer's work through the ability to manipulate and better understand the underlying musical structure. So yes, your understanding of MusicXML is completely relevant. Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Rich_media describes linking directly to an XML file, which this does not. (It reads: It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media.) I will discuss this topic on individual article talk pages from this point on in an attempt to arrive as consensus from those who have an understanding of the topic. Ngreen2001 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding of MusicXML is irrelevant. Another format of scores does not add to the understanding of Bach. The links are also rich media sites, something to avoid. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article was deleted and deemed "unworthy" of an article unto itself. I'm perfectly okay with that. It does not mean that the links added do not have value. The fact that they were in a different format (and the most open format possible) is, in fact, significant. If you doubt the significance of a MusicXML repository and the scores they contain, then I question your understanding of the subject. If you are firm that MusicXML repositories are of no significance, then feel free to remove all references to The Sheet Music Project at Project Gutenberg, as that repository is half the size of Open Music Score. After reading the link you referred to, I can see how someone might see it as link spamming. That was certainly not my intent. I simply see the reference as value added. Ngreen2001 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Attribution stuff at Tim Ball -- thanks!
Thanks for posting the link to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia! Based on this, I've initiated a request at Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen#New_requests to restore the history of these deleted pages.
You may wish to add your opinion of this (imo) spectacularly-silly AfD. Or not, as it's kind-of moot. Oh wait, they want to delete my userspace stuff, too! Arggh! Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- What afd? Re the MFD, delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- MfD, I meant. OK, so long as they don't take my stuff with it! Which I just backed up, since you never know, in the Wiki Climate Wars.... (sigh).
- Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Duffbeerforme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |