User talk:EP111

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

Team links[edit]

Hi, hope you're good. I noticed some of you've been creating some old race pages using the ct template. I just thought I'd let you know I made a page for the non-code teams that you might find useful. I created redirects that can be used in the template for, e.g. {{ct|Gitane-Frigecreme|19}} will put out Gitane–Frigécrème. Great work by the way. BaldBoris 18:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, cheers Boris. I've been using the category up to now. Though, your page will be useful if I get stuck. EP111 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, EP111.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, EP111. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bzuk: Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, from grey ol' Blighty! EP111 (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing[edit]

Hello, EP111.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
3236 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the offer, but I'm busy filling in many of the redlinks on the European cycle race articles at the moment, which I expect will take me another year or so. All the best, EP111 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Golf courses in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Golf courses in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone opened a ANI thread about you[edit]

Someone opened an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User rolls back most of my edits. The user clearly does not have an experiemce with ANI and did not notify you, so I am doing it for them. I have not a slightest idea whether the thread has merit, I am merely a messenger, but it would be probably best of you react having the above in mind. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for the notification. EP111 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Electronic instruments / Synthesizer category (again)[edit]

Hi there EP111, hopefully we can finally claify this once and for all. I know you have quoted WP:SUBCAT; and don't want duplication of categorys which is fine , the only problem is if a page gets created for example Yamaha DX7 the parent category (supercategory) of Yamaha would leave the synthesizer devoid of any new entries (which is what was happening which new pages being added ) which is why i added Synthesizers to the Category:Synthesizers category because that is essentially what it is. Could you please take a look at the categorys if you have not already and tell me what you think as some pages such as this and some contain just one category and some pages up to nine categorys!. There is no consistency at all amongst them, in all the main electronic music category. I have listed the main infoboxes here so you can take a look at some of the pages when you get a chance.Template:Korg Template:Roland Template:Yamaha and Template:Akai. Let us please reach some a compromise on this and move forward as fellow wikipedians. Thank you Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Heres another page i found here only one category on it and has multiple issue and yet it hard to find as the only category is Korg synthesizers, one category the page says "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (July 2016)". There are many more like this that need improving by inline citations or cats so people can find them. Thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Further more you in the past have added some very good further reading, sometimes linking to Sound On Sound magazine and Music Technology which are very well respected sources to my pages for example here and I have publically thanked for each and everone one, so why you turned rogue on me suddenly I have no clue whatsover Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: The whole area of synthesiser categorisation does need a big cleanup, which I happily recognise (however, it's no one person's responsibility to do this). Categories are not usually the primary method of navigation through the encyclopedia, as simple inline links and footer templates achieve most of this. A relative newbie should, ideally, leave categorisation alone until they know exactly what they're doing. Up until the last month or so, I've not really taken a proper look at synths in probably about ten years. The category structure is quite complex. For instance, any synthesizers listed in Category:Electronic musical instruments should be much further down the category tree, as Category:Electronic musical instruments appears to be the top level category for any musical instrument that runs on electricity. As far as the Yamaha DX7 is concerned, it shouldn't be directly placed in either of Category:Synthesizers or Category:Electronic musical instruments (and Category:Keyboard instruments should probably be ignored, until an obvious WP:Consensus is achieved), because they're all too high up the category structure (other usable categories are listed within these categories). As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that if the article has a manufacturer's name in the title, it shouldn't be listed high up the category structure at all.
This is the bit you'll probably like the most: You can add synthesizers to Category:Polyphonic synthesizers (which has a companion Category:Monophonic synthesizers) or any of the categories within Category:Synthesizers by manufacturer (a category I created twelve years ago), and possibly Category:Digital synthesizers or one of its two subcategories (or its companion Category:Analog synthesizers). Though, again, be careful with any categories which are higher up the category structure. So, every synth should at least be categorised to 1. Manufacturer, 2. Mono or poly and 3. Digital or analog.
As far as 'going rogue' is concerned, Wikipedia is a very simple business: Do things right, and there are no problems for anyone. Do things wrong and it's likely to get found out very quickly (and possibly cause the annoyance of extra work for others), because a lot of people use their WP:Watchlist. With your links, note that [[|here]] is non-functional formatting, as it takes me nowhere. You've no need to [ external-link] within your comments unless you're totally lost. A simple [[Korg Pa600MY]], for an internal link, is enough. The other thing I'd recommend keeping easy access to (if not have an immediate thorough read of) is MOS:C - Wikipedia's massive rulebook. EP111 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, an editor scolded me for not adding category's to the pages I'm creating (which might explain which I really do need to get clarification on this) but thank for you for recognising the category's are ambiguous at best!! As you've probably seen that's why I wanted to clear this with you as you have been adding further reading to a lot of pages which is great, but undoing edits is not, would it be easier if I just used the vendor as one category then and you add the category's in moving forward so you can do you Tour de France pages and I can resume editing the electronic instruments pages? Does that sound good to you? (As for being a newbie I've been here now since 20 September 2011) (also sorry for posting originally on your page rather than the talk page that was a genuine mistake I assure you!) And yes you are also better at UEL formatting than me but we are all here to learn :) Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I know you've been registered for quite a long time, but you haven't done that many edits (only a thousand or so, and most of those only in the last three months), hence the 'relative newbie'. If you just want to add the manufacturer's category and then let others pick up the slack, then that should be alright, as long as at least the one category is present. Note also, it's *categories* for plural, *category* for singular and the possessive apostrophe is something else! EP111 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note also, it's *categories* for plural, *category* for singular and the possessive apostrophe is something else! EP111
Ha yes, the rules for the apostrophe are a tad convoluted. Glad we can now move forward Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, I like your suggestion for Cat:1. Manufacturer, 2. Mono or poly and 3. Digital or analogue. is quite good but does make me worry that any future entries will leave the synthesizer category quite sparse, unless of course that can be merged? Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sparsity shouldn't be a problem, as all the synthesisers will be listed within the subcategories of Category:Synthesizers. EP111 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Navbox logos[edit]

Hi again. Quick question because I know you created the categorys for the some of the synths as you said. A logo has been added to the Korg navbox a while back, so I added one to Roland et al. Today, an editor has removed the Roland logo from the navbox and said the logos are not to be used outside of the main page. Which editor is correct?. Thanks Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t say that logos are to not to be used outside of the main page, so please don’t misquote or misrepresent me. What I said was that non-free content cannot be used in the template namespace per WP:NFCC#9. File:Roland Corporation logo.svg is licensed as non-free content so each use of it must satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy; File:Logo korg.png, on the other hand, is licensed as public domain content, so it is not subject to Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy and therefore can used in a template, etc. FWIW, File:Roland logo.svg is a PD file from Commons which can be used in the template if you want. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ijustwannabeawinner: As Marchjuly said, you have to check the image rights before use. Not all images are equal, and this is particularly likely to be the case with corporate property, such as a company logo. EP111 (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@EP111 thanks for that
@Marchjuly i will revert the change, thanks.
@Ijustwannabeawinner: As I've explained on my user talk, User talk:Ijustwannabeawinner#Non-free image use, in this discussion thread, and in edt sums here, here, and here, File:Roland Corporation logo.svg is licensed as non-free content and non-free content is clearly not allowed to be used anywhere other than the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. This means no userpages, no talk apges, no sandboxes, no drafts, no userboxes, no portals, and no templates, etc. I'm not sure how or why you are having difficulty understanding this or what you means by this edit sum, but nothing EP111 posted about has changed the fact this this file cannot be used in templates per Wikipedia policy. Now, if you want to ask for clarifcation on this, feel free to do so at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. Not every image you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same, and how a file is licensed pretty much determines how it can be used on Wikipedia. As I suggested above, if you want to add a logo file to the Roland template, you can use File:Roland logo.svg. That file is under a public domain license and is available from Commons. Image use and licensing can be trickly, so mistakes are expected and considered OK; however, repeating the same mistake over and over again is not, especially when you informed that it's a mistake. Continuing to re-add the file to the template is going to eventually be considered edit warring (please note that removing clear violations of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is not considered a violation of 3RR per WP:NOT3RR) and will lead to adminstrator being asked to step and take action as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly The confusion probably comes from this which is also above "File:Roland logo.svg is a PD file from Commons which can be used in the template if you want".
An edit war is when editors disagree which i did't think they did, post the previous discussions (with EP111)
If you want your way fine, but you will have to revert other nav boxes by other editors too.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
If you find any more non-free files being used in templates, you can remove them yourself per WP:NFCC#9. Just make sure you leave a clear edit sum explaining why. However, public domain or freely-licensed files are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus they can be used in templates like navboxes and there's no need to remove them (at least not for non-free content use reasons). So, please check the file's licensing to be sure you're not removing one of those files. If you're not sure how a file is licensed, you can ask for help at WP:MCQ. File:Roland logo.svg and File:Roland Corporation logo.svg are two completely different files with completely different copyright licenses; perhaps you didn't closely look at each file and it's licensing which is why you got confused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
To remove any ambiguity then, if you believe the old Roland logo (not the Orange one) can be used could you revert the change?Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I found this for the Yamaha template File:Yamaha logo.svg that is in the public domain. Anyone have any objections to me putting it on there? Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ijustwannabeawinner: I cannot see any particular problem with it, though I'm not the best person to ask on such a matter. You may have better luck at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests or WP:MCQ. The quicker alternative is to put it in place and wait and see if anyone removes it. If someone does remove it, and provides a reason in the edit summary, then it's best not to revert it. EP111 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@EP111 Cheers, i'll apply the logo now. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nord Modular[edit]

Hello EP111,

You have removed valuable resourses from the external links of the Nord Modular page. These are flagships for the Clavia Nord Modular and Nord modular G2: You named this advertisment. But you kept the link to the Wizzoo books. I hope you will roll back your edit. Thank you in advance, Kymaman (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Kymaman

According to your userpage, there is a clear personal interest in the weblinks I've removed. According to the guideline in WP:ADV, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent", which is why you shouldn't have added them. The role of an editor is to further the interests of the encyclopedia, not to promote oneself. EP111 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello EP111, My mistake, sorry about the links. Without th links this would be accepted? I see here still this link: This must be a clear personal interest in your opinion. Why did you not remove this one? Also you removed my non commercial lecture link on Logic and the Nord modular: (furthering the interests of the encyclopedia) Kymaman (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Kymaman

The Wizoo book isn't of any clear, personal interest to any editor (but it would be better in a "further reading" section, if it has an isbn or oclc; rather than as an external link). Your non-commercial link is still of clear, personal interest to you; that definitely fails WP:ADV on the grounds of "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". EP111 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
p.s. The Wizoo book has both an isbn and an oclc, so I've moved it to a "Further reading" section. EP111 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
p.p.s. Would they be accepted without the links? Without another text source, any content from them would fail WP:NOR. Why didn't I remove the Wizoo book? It's a third-party published book, acceptable as WP:RS, and not WP:SPS. EP111 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer EP111, The Wizzoo book is filled with very low level examples for the Nord Modular. As you explained not to link to one's personal website it should be all right to link to the third party publisher of these iconic Kuit books? Kymaman (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Kymaman

Books which have an ISBN or OCLC number can be included in either a further reading section, or as references. Though, it should be left to another editor to include them, rather than the author. If the author included them, it would raise a WP:COI. EP111 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)