User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive2

Userfy article

"If it was sockpuppet behaviour that contributed to Michelle Belanger being deleted, then let us work on restoring that article to mainspace. I have asked you several times if you want me to userfy it for you, and you have not responded."

Not sure if you read my reply (it was buried in other comments) but I will take the page and will work with SillyLilyPhilly to refine it. I don't know how long it will take, but can we ask for an extension on the album article in case it takes longer than 25 days to fix the MB article.

BTW, the Van Morrison article is amazing. Ebonyskye (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User:Ebonyskye/Michelle Belanger. It was more tricky than usual as the page history had been lost. I tracked it down via a userfication last month. SilkTork *^YES! 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If positive work is being done on Blood of Angels then I'll not delete it. SilkTork *^YES! 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger is in mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 09:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made Blood of Angels a redirect to [[User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels#Blood_of_Angels]]. You can continue to work on User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels to establish notability if you wish, though my advice at this stage is to work on building Michelle_Belanger#Blood_of_Angels, and if that section develops to the point where it can be split out in summary style to a standalone article, then it can be done from that section, with a link to the new article. My thinking is that the topic ban would not extend to an article on Michelle_Belanger; so it should be OK for you to edit that in mainspace. If editing occurs on the article that concerns you, then please raise it with me rather than engaging in an edit war. If you are happy with this suggestion, then I'll delete User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoinks! That was fast. Today and tomorrow belong to my Mom, so I will get started next week. As for a standalone on the album, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to combine the MB article and the album? That might be weird since the music is also a collaboration with NA, and would link outside of their discography. But I had planned to look at other music pages to see how they were handled when an album was a collaboration or dual release, or similar collaboration. I seem to recall something with Jewel or Heart. Again, thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for Michelle Belanger article

I noted that you had not yet been informed of the proposed deletion of the Michelle Belanger article put forth by Diana LaCrois . As a contributor to this article, I felt you might want to be made aware.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michelle Belanger

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michelle Belanger, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fails notability for an individual article. Does not qualify for WP:BIO.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review of the WP:Prod procedure it looks as though the article does not even qualify for the {{prod}} tag. I have removed the {{prod}} tag, based on my understanding of WP:Prod, and left a sections detailing my reasons for the removal on the article's talk page.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decision

[1] You are no longer subject to a topic ban. All the normal rules and procedures of Wikipedia behaviour and editing apply. And if you engage in edit warring you will come under the topic ban again. It's worth reading the motion carefully.

You'll note that it has been taken into account that you challenge the outcome of the checkuser. The wording of the motion allows for the possibility that you are not a sockpuppet. The end result is that you are able to edit freely, within the normal confines of Wikipedia's codes. SilkTork *^YES! 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have never had any other account but this one, and I still don't like that I was sucked into all this, but I also can't sit by and see others go unpunished for POV edits and the like. Thanks for keeping the voting fair. I'll make sure to read discussions before editing any other pages in the future, to avoid getting drawn into yet another edit war. If it looks like there's a war happening, I just won't edit. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Punishment" is not something we do here on Wikipedia. We sometimes need to protect an article or the project itself from harmful or disruptive individuals - but the aim is not punishment of the individual. The topic ban in this case was not a punishment, it was a solution to prevent future edit wars on certain articles which made them unstable. SilkTork *^YES! 08:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, huh. It sure felt like I was being punished for something I did not do. Perhaps and overzealous admin on a power trip? Ebonyskye (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is tempting at times on Wiki to comment on the motives of others, it is rarely fruitful. Always better to concentrate on the issue and the outcome. People frequently say and do things that are not helpful. Such is the nature of working on a vast open enterprise. SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels

Hi Ebonyskye. There has been no substantial improvement to the article, and no edits at all for 20 days. Unless you give me a substantive reason for not removing the article I shall delete it after 24 hours. I will let you know when I have deleted it, and direct you to a place where you can ask someone else to userfy it for you if you feel you may still be able to improve it. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I though it was agreed it was to be included in the Michelle Belanger article? That is were I was editing. Though it does break up the flow of the Nox Arcana discog. Any chance we can use the album template so the timelime is unbroken. I noted you did place the template but then it was removed. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early on (before the derailment of this article with the AFD of the Michelle Belanger article), the concern for keeping this album article was notability of the person Michelle Belanger. We now know that the deletion of her article was in part due to sockpuppets stacking the vote against her. Also, the original admin who deleted this article didn't seem to understand that the album was a collaboration and also did not seem to consider the notability of Nox Arcana (being on Billboard and having 10 albums). AND, one of the voters to AFD this page was also one of the socks to vote on the AFD of the Belanger page, was it not?

So, I have taken what was here, added a bit of what was edited on the Michelle Belanger article, used proper citation templates, added new facts about the recording, added 3 new cites (the ones supporting the Watcher myths) and the feature article on the subject in Dark Realms, and deleted some of the redundant or trivial stuff (though I think that the band recording this in 5 days is rather surprising so I added that plus the timeline according to statements made by Vargo in the Flame Rising interview.).

The issues that resulted in this article being deleted were only partly the notability of Belanger (which has now been established), and partly missing or unverifiable citations (which have now been added and can be verified), I think this article could be given another chance in mainspace. What do you say? Ebonyskye (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of Angels infobox for Michelle Belanger article

I've requested both SilkTork and DragonflySixtyseven to participate in the Talk:Michelle_Belanger#Merging_album_page about this topic. --SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels

Hi Ebonyskye. I note there has been no progress on the User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels page. As the Blood of Angels article was deleted, you cannot maintain a copy in your userspace indefinitely as per WP:UP#COPIES. I have previously made Blood of Angels a redirect to Blood of Angels section of the Michelle Belanger article where I moved the substantial content of the Blood of Angels article. As the content is out there in mainspace, there is no need to keep this old copy in your userspace. If I recall this is the third time I have raised this issue with you. I do not wish for this to go on indefinitely. As you haven't provided me with any substantive reason for keeping the page, nor have you worked on it, I am therefore deleting the page. If you wish the page to be again undeleted for you, you may approach one of these admins. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Totally forgot about that. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Necronomicon (album)

I have nominated Necronomicon (album), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chzz ► 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Darklore Manor.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Darklore Manor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chzz ► 09:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove links to active deletion discussions from image description pages. This makes it so others cannot find these discussions, but does not necessarily prevent the image from being deleted. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review Darklore Manor and Necronomicon (album)

Thought you'd be interested in knowing that both articles were nominated and one was summarily deleted by a non-admin without consensus. User:Chzz is targeting all Nox Arcana albums and cites a completely different article Blood of Angels for his reason for deletion of the 2 above (Chzz also nominated that Angels article for deletion, if you recall). Chzz further states that the 2 articles have no sources, when they obviously did, plus more were added, and they are good reliable 3rd party sources. I've requested protection but wanted the input of an admin who had some experience with this issue, because, frankly, I think Chzz is going nuts with the Twinkle toolbar, and has been softly warned about making too many AfdProds [2]. Your comments and suggestions would be welcome. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my views. I feel Darklore Manor should be relisted on AfD as there wasn't clear consensus, and that Necronomicon should be deleted with details on the album dealt with appropriately within the parent Nox Arcana article. As there is little coverage of these albums, even among the gothic horror fraternity, enough notability (and interesting material) has not been established for a standalone article. A few sentences on the main aspects of the albums can be given in the (currently quite short) Nox Arcana article, and that would be more useful than directing the reader away from the parent article into a series of other short articles which mainly consist of trivia, filler and repeated information. Track listings are pointless as the songs are not known. My strong suggestion is that all the albums by the band are treated on the parent article - at least that way the parent article starts to grow and becomes more interesting. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting because another discussion long ago had suggested the opposite and I think that's was why an album discography was started in the first place. Another admin had said the main article was too long so someone started the discography. Ebonyskye (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Blood of Angels which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Necronomicon (album)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Necronomicon (album). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion endorse question

By endorsing the deletion of the Blood of Angels album article, does this mean that a new article may not be re-created? As I said, a few new sources are available since the article was deleted, and other album Afd's for this band have been rejected (ie: album articles allowed to stay). For the sake of consistency I'd like to re-create the article. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any deleted article may be recreated as long as the reason for the deletion is overcome. The exception is where an article has been deleted so many times as to cause an administrator to feel it necessary to prevent it from recreation, in which case one should make a userspace draft to bring to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to take a look? I actually have been working on this draft which I posted temporarily here User:Ebonyskye/Sandbox. I think it has the same tone and notability qualifications as the other Nox Arcana albums, and I was careful to note that it was unique because it was the first collaborative work in their discography. I also added the All Music profile for the album and updated the link to Billboard. Also added that the theme was featured at Dragoncon as the "Blood of Angels" discussion panel. I'm not sure about another DRV. One editor complained that it was a waste of time to Afd an album article, and to rather discuss on the talk page. One thing I noticed is that Category:Nox Arcana albums is now missing the Blood of Angels album, so this article is really needed to make the list whole again. Ebonyskye (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be inclined to delete this article again per CSD:G4. I cannot guarantee that other users will share the same opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I read CSD:G4 just to check on that. So, what should I do now? Do I list yet another DRV, but show the revised article this time? Should I get an opinion from SilkTork first, (the admin who merged the album to the author page, and appears to have since reversed their opinion of the deletion in the last DRV)? I'm only concerned that if I DO re-list the article, despite that it has improved, that it may get Afd'd again and I won't have an official vote or consensus to point to and say "hey, we all agreed..." This is almost what happened 4 months back, so I really want to do this right to avoid any hassle (for everyone). Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a DRV, because the page is not locked. Assuming you are the only person who has worked on the draft and it doesn't use any external material beyond what was on the page in the first place, you can copy and paste it into place.

Whether you get an opinion from SilkTork or not is up to you, and there is no immediate way of preventing the article from being AFDed again. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your opinion again

Just wanted to get your thoughts on my latest revisions of this article: User:Ebonyskye/Sandbox. Also, please read my talk page for the last (encouraging) words from the DRV admin, Stifle, for my reasoning, and for what has been added. If you have no objections, I'd like to place this article in main space. I know we went through this already, but I added more info, and I really thought more stuff would be included in the merged version, then it all got removed a bit at a time. So I'm starting over. I've also been re-working the author article on Michelle Belanger to get that one looking more like a respectable author bio. If I recreate the album page, I'll remove redundant info from the author page and clean up the music section to be more balanced and give equal weight to the other albums she co-wrote. Ebonyskye (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that as it stands it would pass an AfD as it doesn't have reliable sources to support notability. What you do with it is your decision, as you have gone down a route that no longer involves me. But I would advise finding some credible reliable source before putting it into mainspace. It doesn't help if you put it out, someone takes it to AfD and it gets deleted. You will then have a much harder time getting it out there a third time. If you put it out there, and it does go to AfD, then don't bring it to my attention, as I would vote against it.

Are there no credible mainstream sources at all? I should think that at least one of the main music papers reviewed it. I have a friend who manages local bands in Portsmouth, and he manages to get their locally produced records reviewed by NME and mentioned on BBC Radio 1 just by sending copies to them. Without a review by a credible source people will think that the album is simply not notable. The band themselves will know if they got a review - if you have contact with them get in touch and ask them. The source may not be online, but if it was published, then there'll be a copy in a library somewhere. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't considered reviews at all. Probably because another editor seemed to think that was too promotional. They also wanted an online source that could be readily checked. Side-line magazine is a popular music magazine out of Belgium and is distributed worldwide, and they reviewed this album. Another music magazine, Extreme, in Argentina reviewed it as well. I would think both are reliable sources in that they are well established music reviewers and obviously not affiliated with a band from the US. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on Extreme magazine on a quick search, but I did find Side-Line. I was uncertain at first as it has a low circulation (it helps to be realistic in your description of things - "popular" is not an appropriate description for a narrow focus magazine with a limited circulation!), but after some searching found an academic publication which cited Side-Line,[3] thus giving it an appropriate status as a specialist magazine for electro-goth music. So a review in Side-Line would be acceptable, and could form the basis of an argument to say that the album is of specialist interest, and has been reviewed by one of the notable publications in the field. If you could find another review or significant mention in such a magazine (one that has a credible claim to notability) then I would support moving the article into mainspace, and I would stand by it in an AfD. The review is online: [4] SilkTork *^YES! 13:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the review in Side-line, which has a rather good sized subscriber base and is distributed in the US, UK, France, Germany and elsewhere, was already posted in the infobox, along with the review from Music Extreme (Argentine)[5]. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]