User talk:EddieHugh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving message to new section...[edit]

I've never added anything before so this is a test. Will my post be seen here? John Costa, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Costa#External_links should be included as Jazz musician EXTREMELY Influenced by Art Tatum. I believe this relationship/connection is extremely important in light of current social issues, the popularity of the Mr. Rogers movie, {Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood} that Art Tatum should be acknowledged as a contributor to the development of the creative content of the show/movie soundtrack. Happyhodgepodge (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. You nearly got it right: to start a new section on a talk page, click on the 'New section' icon (probably a little left of Wikipedia's search bar) and then put your message in the window that appears, plus a title for the new section. On Costa: there's a limit to how many people it's sensible to list on the Tatum article as having been influenced by him. Now, for the pianists, it's limited to ones who sources state took on the "virtuoso solo aspects of Tatum's style". On the Costa article, more (sourced) information on his style and how it compared with that of Tatum would be useful. I'll look into the other things. EddieHugh (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about current events or current social issues. It isn't a newspaper or a soap box or a vehicle to boost a cause or movement. I apologize for my fellow Americans hardwired lack of historical sense. Most Americans can't see past last Thursday.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Love for Sale[edit]

I don't know if you've seen my comments here. I'm astonished that an article about an unreleased album was even allowed to be created.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources exist, so.... On genres, you could ask the simple question: are there any sources that state "this is a jazz [fusion] album"? If there aren't, then it shouldn't be listed as one. My very limited reading of it makes me conclude that the commentators were struggling to attach any genre labels to it, in which case the best solution, I believe, is to leave the genre part of the infobox blank (and/or use a hidden note, which is what I did at Finding Gabriel). EddieHugh (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The reluctance to find a genre partially motivates the desire to assign it to all genres to make it seem more profound—a form of puffery. I'm certain it's not jazz and I don't intend to let it remain in the project.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A fusion story[edit]

You could say I'm a child of the 80s. My first experience of jazz fusion was probably "Morning Dance" or "Summer Strut" by Spyro Gyra. Some called it elevator music, but what else are you going to do in an elevator? When Pat Metheny got a lot of airplay on the Weather Channel, he was OK with that. I remember Wynton Marsalis criticizing the Beatles with faint praise by calling it nice, hummable music. It certainly isn't complex—unless you sit down and try to rattle off songs the way Lennon and McCartney rattled off their first two albums, then you realize it's not so easy. I think Jay Beckenstein assembled a group of real musicians playing the kind of music people wanted at the time. My friends, who were musicians, played "Summer Strut" in the school jazz band, which was actually a class during school, and I played it over the air as a disc jockey back when DJ meant a job spinning discs instead of an "artist" scratching turntables. At about that time, Miles Davis made his comeback with Decoy and You're Under Arrest, and he was playing a pretty straight version of "Time after Time" by Cyndi Lauper, a nice pop song. Why? Because he liked it. That was the only justification he felt he needed. A few years before, I had heard Manhattan Transfer's Extensions because Dad was a big fan of that band. That was an interesting band. They had pop hits, but they could sing genuine jazz vocalese, relying a lot on Jon Hendricks. That album had "Birdland" on it, so I heard that version before the Weather Report original (with Jaco), which was before my time. They did a version of "Shaker Song" by Spyro Gyra. No one ever doubted the band's fine arrangements, mostly by Tim Hauser who died a couple years ago, or the vocal abilities of every member, esp. the harmony. You see how much variety there is in the music I've mentioned, and yet none of it would ever have been confused with R&B, which was being used interchangeably with "soul". I don't know if anyone ever called Ray Charles soul but they did call him R&B. When Donald Fagen thinks of R&B, he thinks of Bobby Blue Bland. And now that I think about it, "rhythm and blues" isn't all that descriptive a term, is it? Most songs today, most pop and rock songs, have a rhythm, of course, and contain elements of the blues. The surest way to make a term obsolete is to attach "new" or "neo" to it: New Criticism, New Deal, New Frontier. I have little confidence in neo-soul or Nu Jazz. I'm not going to use the term "yacht rock" either. That's a sarcastic insult, and I'm not here to insult musicians or to tell readers What They Ought to Like If They Were As Sensitive and Profound as I. As for shoegaze, I discourage it, unless you want to run into the person in front of you.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the story; "what else are you going to do in an elevator?" – that's funny! EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sun Ra[edit]

What do you think of that long list of musicians in the Sun Ra article?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First thought: it looks hopelessly incomplete. Second thought: it's introduced with "partial list". Remaining thoughts: some band articles have chronologies that show when members joined and left... they're useful if there aren't many changes, but would be near-impossible in this instance. There's already Category:Sun Ra Arkestra members, which looks like the best place to direct people. Maybe the Arkestra should have its own article, where details of band members could reside (but writing it to a worthwhile level of information would probably be more work than anyone would want to commit to). EddieHugh (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Art Tatum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Art Tatum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The man without a middle name[edit]

This is odd. A reader suggests that Archie Shepp has no middle name. I misunderstood what he was asking for: some kind of source that says "This man has no middle name", which is unlikely unless it is in a biography of Shepp. It presents a problem because sources will list him without a middle name because they don't know it, not because they know he doesn't have one. I've never heard of a person without a middle name, have you? It's probably more common that I realized. Well, you learn something every day, right? It's good that this reader pointed it out. Otherwise I never would've known. I'll check the books on my shelves. Let me know if you have any ideas about how to solve this.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied there. EddieHugh (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) There are literally millions of people who have no middle name. Middle name tells us "The abbreviation "N.M.N." (no middle name) or "N.M.I." (no middle initial), with or without periods, is sometimes used in formal documents in the United States, where a middle initial or name is expected but the person does not have one." There's even a whole book on the subject! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ....like him for example?Reply[reply]
Does "Jr" count as a name? It adds to the rhythm, helps with distinguishing, and provides a link to others, which must be some of the main reasons that they're handed out. EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it must do. Although we don't have many Juniors here in the UK, just a few "Kid"s. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Art Tatum[edit]

The article Art Tatum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Art Tatum for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Art Tatum[edit]

The article Art Tatum you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Art Tatum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sit in my chair...[edit]

Wonderful work on Solitude, thank you. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Sometimes I'm filled with despair at the state of what should be developed articles, but there's too much to do, so it's a bit at at time. EddieHugh (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jutta Hipp[edit]

I removed one of the citations to Hipp's NYT obituary because it seemed unnecessary as it normal to source a passage to multiple sources. The source you just added to external links queries the end of Hipp's professional career as being in 1958 as claimed by the NYT, but I had not read it at the time I made the edit. However, the "year's active" parameter tends to be used for a subject's professional career in the area of their notability. Her later work in the other NYC boroughs seems to have been semi-professional at best. Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intent/meaning of years active is unclear; I usually take it to be when the person was being paid to be a musician, but that gets unclear, too (full-time/occasional, etc). I'm in the 'citation for every sentence' camp: it reduces the likelihood of unsourced material looking like it's sourced; and it's a basic service to the reader, allowing checks to be made more easily. Thanks for the prose improvements – I had to give up on the article because of a lack of sources, and it was left as it stood after information had been added. EddieHugh (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penguins[edit]

Sorry not to have replied sooner, so thought I’d better reply here rather than on my own talk. There’s probably a fine line between perseverance and bloody-mindedness, and it was probably more in the way of diversionary activity during lockdown. Anyway, I think I’ve now covered everything linked from the leader’s main page or discography. There are almost certainly plenty more that weren’t linked. I’ve now started on another Penguin. Brunton (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know whether his page is on your watchlist, but I have just added a link to its talk page, which may be worth exploring. Jazz is just not my thing, but I thought your interest might be stirred. Regards. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created that article and took it to GA – I like obscure figures! Thanks for the link; it's quite a review – "one of modern jazz's great lost albums"; I'll look to add some bits from it. Incidentally, the person who wrote the liner notes has also contributed here on occasion. EddieHugh (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Well, glad to have been of assistance. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya! I saw you nominated the article for Don Latarski for deletion. I've attempted to improve it slightly by citing external sources and whatnot, so hopefully that's enough to merit it remaining on Wikipedia. Just figured I'd tell ya directly. You have a good day. ^^ -Vulpicula (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. A passing mention doesn't help to establish notability, however. The basic requirements are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as detailed at WP:GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Armon-Jones[edit]

I would like to put a stop to the creation of orphans like Joe Armon-Jones. This article was created in Dec 2020 by someone with a conflict of interest. That's been made clear. OK, but what I would like to make clear to whomever it may concern is that I don't want to see any more orphans created, particularly a self-interested orphan of a relatively new musician who hasn't recorded much and who is unlikely to be connected to any existing articles. Aside from the annoyance, it's too promotional and there's no end to it. Do you know who I could contact about this? Perhaps the people who helped this person create the article (or any article) should have informed him.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The person who created it appeared to know what to do. The responsibility lies with the person who moved it from a draft. The guidelines for accepting an article are here and don't mention wikilinks, so there's probably nothing that can be done about orphans being created. In this instance, Armon-Jones probably is notable and I've even spotted a possible link. EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open to suggestions[edit]

Open to suggestions about how to deal with these characters. Scroll to the end of the page.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had an early run-in with a similar person. He does a lot of good work, but cooperation and responding well to feedback aren't among his strengths, in my experience. I've avoided him since that time. EddieHugh (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7/7[edit]

I love the work you did on the 7/7 page, especially reducing the trainspotter level content. I have done a similar thing in the various UK fire service articles which had become a magnet for original research and excessive detail. I have cleaned up all bar a couple (see my user page) but the odd bit has crept back in, e.g. at Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service. Personally I don't think any article should have a list of all the fire stations, shift patterns and appliances at each, but I have left that in place in some, albeit trimmed down somewhat, but the Hampshire article is now a joke having been updated again. If you feel inclined to take a look I would be grateful. If you want to take every table out of every article I wouldn't object! 10mmsocket (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I laughed when I reached the 'Fire appliance glossary / callsigns' section of that page. That's more like an information sheet that must be memorised ahead of a workplace test than something for an encyclopedia. The table can safely be removed, too. Just refer people to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It's interesting (but not surprising) that the detail-adders exist in lots of parts of the encyclopedia – I'm accustomed to removing mentions of someone's favourite band once having recorded a song. EddieHugh (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every single UK fire article had the same tables before I replaced them (some in a better way than others). I got quite a bit of pushback from the "spotters" some of which resulted in sockpuppet accounts being blocked and pages receiving semi-protection. That article plus the Scottish / NI Fire & Rescue are the only ones that are left. I'll get around to them at some point - but like I say, feel free to have a crack at them if you want to :) 10mmsocket (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now deleted and comment placed on article's talk page. Thanks for the shove in that direction! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello! You asked a question of me on my Talk page more than a year ago, and I have no excuse I can give you for why I saw it only today. I answered your question and asked one of you. It is on my Talk page if you want to pop over and have a look. Thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stepping[edit]

I'm stepping away indefinitely from Wikipedia, though I'm keeping my account and my User Page relatively intact. I want to tie up some loose ends.

First, thank you for your decency, encouragement, and effort. As in the Kipling poem, you kept your head when others were losing theirs. If you are interested in any books, let me know. I will send them to you for free if you can come up with an arrangement that suitably protects your privacy. I have many more books than I listed on my User Page. Some I still like, but there are others I doubt I will use in the future.

If you can get to America, you have a place to stay for free. You only need to pay for the plane ticket. You can contact me through Wikipedia or in a way that suitably protects your privacy. I live near a couple big cities with attractive music venues. I don't attend them because I was never much of a city kid.

As you have no doubt surmised, this isn't a good time to come to America. But I suspect much will be resolved by Christmas, and there will be some extraordinary changes. You might keep an eye on Rick Beato's YouTube channel for some interesting and instructive commentary about music of all kinds.Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sad to hear that. But you must have good reasons, so I wish you well. You've contributed a lot here in several ways. Thank you for the offers – like you say, nowhere's a joy to travel to at the moment, perhaps including one's own mind much of the time. I'll look again at Beato, having got the pronunciation of his name wrong at the first attempt... EddieHugh (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation of "case" in main body[edit]

Hi, User:EddieHugh. I noticed you took my edit that explained what a "case" is out of the main body of Art Tatum, instead making it a note. My thought would be to put it back in the main body, as many readers of Wikipedia will not look at the note but only scroll through the main text, reading, and miss seeing what a "case" is. I think the info as to what a case is is important for the reader as it really gives them a mental picture of Art's prodigious drinking, and better understanding of his life story, and many won't know what a case is so they won't get that picture. So to me the sentence in parentheses in the main body explaining what a case is should be returned.

Btw, the whole article is really great. Why hasn't it become a featured article? Greg Dahlen (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the interest. To me, putting a whole sentence in parentheses is a strong indication that it's peripheral to the main narrative... that's the same as saying that it can be included as a note. As the definition of a "case" isn't about the topic of the article, I think that a note is the best place for it. Unfortunately, the source doesn't elaborate on what a "case" was – perhaps there was a standard at the time – but it's now unclear, as your addition points out, so there's no brief way of clarifying. There are some details I'd like to find and add (particularly recording sessions) before putting it up as a FAC. Most readers won't see the gaps, but I know that they're there. I also know the required source, but the pandemic is restricting access to physical materials. EddieHugh (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EddieHugh I don't think it's exactly peripheral. As best I can articulate it, we'd put it in parentheses as a nod to people who already know what a case is. Sort of like saying "We know some people may already know what a case is, and it may irritate them to have it explained here, but there are a fair number who don't know, so we're explaining it." Also put it in parentheses because it's not the standard information in an article which would be accomplishments and analysis, it's explaining a term, but the term is still important to understanding Tatum's life.
Putting it in the note isn't terrible. I'm afraid some readers won't hover over the note, and thus will miss getting an understanding of what a case is and thus miss a more accurate mental picture of Tatum's life.
Actually the info about some other musician saying Tatum drank a case of beer is weak because we don't know what the musician meant by a case. Could we find a better information "bite" to quantify his drinking? I've looked for one online but so far can't find it.
Thanks for your work on this article.
I would say it could be nominated for or become a featured article, but you could continue working on it during and after? Greg Dahlen (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are lots of comments about him always drinking and some examples, but nothing else that's (more) specific about 'normal' quantities, hence the use of that one. EddieHugh (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing album history from David Grisman[edit]

Hi User:EddieHugh. I see you removed some history around a few of his albums. These albums were released, and with the stated musicians on them and that was the musical style. Vintage instruments were used for the recordings. I believe these have some important significance and there should be ample verifiable and reliably sourced supporting but I don’t understand why whoever wrote those sections did not cite any sources. Some of this info is stated on his discography for those albums, and references All Music Guide. Do you see an issue if I rewrote those sections and cited All Music Guide? Thanks, Ddab (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be great. I removed that text because it had 'citation needed' tags that had been there for over 2 years... that's long enough. I sometimes look for sources instead of removing text, but in this instance the information was detailed, so I didn't. Please do add it back (with citations!) if you have sources that cover all of that information. EddieHugh (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jazzdisco.org[edit]

The post on WP:RSN you referred me to listed a number of print works which used Jazzdisco.org as a source. Its homepage states

Compiled and maintained by the Jazz Discography Project team.

  • Nobuaki Togashi <togashi>
  • Kohji 'Shaolin' Matsubayashi <shaolin>
  • Masayuki Hatta <mhatta>

I don't think those print sources or Jazzdisco.org are reliable sources per WP:UGC. If a print source uses a unreliable source, don't you think it is unreliable itself? Sikonmina (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the WP:USEBYOTHERS part of WP:RS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." The print sources mentioned include very well-known university publishers, which makes them RS, unless there's strong evidence to doubt the accuracy of their contents (there isn't here). The fact that these RS use and refer positively to jazzdisco is therefore evidence that it is likely to be fine to use here. EddieHugh (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's fine to use here. You missed the last bit of WP:USEBYOTHERS: "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them". If jazzdisco.org is being used as a primary source, it shouldn't be used. Linking to it also constitutes WP:SPAM and the specific part seems to be WP:REFSPAM. Sikonmina (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Entries in a discography surely aren't likely to be "unduly contentious or minority claims". The established view of jazzdisco, based on its use by RS, is that it's fine, so using it is in accordance with "reflect[ing] established views of sources as far as we can determine them". I haven't seen any criticism of jazzdisco in RS... have you seen any? I also don't see how it's spamming, any more than linking to an AllMusic page is spamming. It's normal linking to a source that's been used. (I'm not associated with jazzdisco and I don't know of any Wikipedia editor who is.) EddieHugh (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't AllMusic's reviews by paid staff? If so, AllMusic is a WP:RS and linking to it is appropriate. Sikonmina (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might be seeing things as too black and white. AllMusic reviewers are probably paid, but that's not what makes it a RS (actually, parts of AllMusic have been deemed to be of questionable reliability). Daily Mail journalists are paid, but that's not a RS for Wikipedia. We have an excess of policies, guidelines and other things on Wikipedia, and they all have to be balanced when considering something such as 'is this an appropriate source to use for _____?' There is probably no source in the world for which the answer is 'yes, in any and all circumstances'. EddieHugh (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on how the source is used. Daily Mail may be reliable for certain stories including those on celebrities. If a celebrity gives an interview exclusively to Daily Mail then that would be used as a reliable source. In the case of [1], the books are reliable but the content that uses Jazzdisco.com is not. It can't be used as a primary source or as a reference. If you used individual parts of books that cite Jazzdisco, the page and paragraph number needs to be cited. References in the book cannot be considered reliable if they rely on Jazzdisco. Sikonmina (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you are saying is the opposite of the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. (Your assertion about the Daily Mail is also incorrect. See Wikipedia:DAILY MAIL.) EddieHugh (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And which part of my assertion about the Daily Mail is incorrect? There's definitely circular reporting here. ::::::::::::::::Sikonmina (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From that link: "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion". WP:ABOUTSELF is "sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", under certain conditions. So, using it as a source to state something about a celebrity isn't permitted, even if it's (apparently) from an interview with that person. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are picking and choosing which parts of the guideline/policy to adhere to! Sikonmina (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comment above, beginning "We have an excess of policies, guidelines and other things on Wikipedia, and they all have to be balanced..." EddieHugh (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what about circular reporting? Sikonmina (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the suggestion in this specific case? EddieHugh (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sikonmina has been blocked indefinitely, as a sockpuppet. EddieHugh (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page About Umberto Petrin[edit]

I update with inline citation, thank you. Hi, i don't know how i can write a in line citation for every phrase of the bio and career; I found every his information in the official site and source that I wrote on footer on article. How can I solve this situation? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliguerr (talkcontribs) 10:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for asking. artupart.com looks like a management agency. That's not an independent source, so it can be used (only) for some basic information if no other source is available. Places people can look for more information can go in a separate 'external links' section. Really, everything that is added should have an inline citation. If you can't find a suitable source, it's better not to include the information. I'll look at the article again in a few days to check. I will probably remove anything that doesn't have a source. But, if I have time, I'll look for some other sources that can be used. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Eddie trying to update my page[edit]

Hi Eddie I’ve been having a friend try to update my page and the updates keep getting undone, can you message me ? Thanks, Grant 184.146.193.132 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What page is that? EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete all the info on the James E Pugh page?[edit]

Hi Eddie,

Just curious as to why you basically took it upon yourself to completely disassemble the James E Pugh (trombonist) wikipage. You deleted so much information and didn't even contribute anything useful to it other than poor citations to the Groves Music dictionary. We took a lot of time to create it and there was nothing useful with the information that you gave. Thanks for destroying it. Jim Pugh (trombonist).Gtalusan (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It had two templates on it that had been there for almost a decade: 'This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations' and 'This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification'. The edit summaries point out why I made the changes... basically, it was doing what was required to be able to remove those templates. That meant cutting what was unsourced (we need reliable sources) and cutting what wasn't in the sources given (another type of unsourced). Grove is an excellent source. There is a higher standard for biographies of living persons than for some other articles on Wikipedia (see WP:BLP for details), so all of this was justified. Sourcing standards and expectations on Wikipedia have increased considerably since the time the article was created 15 years ago. When adding material, we should have an inline citation for each piece of information (as is the case for the current version of the article). Last, I'm not sure if your signature here is saying that you are the subject of the article, or closely associated with him. If you are, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I hope that explains things (and also why your re-addition of the information was reverted by another editor). EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
Multiple GA Barnstar.png
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boris Johnson[edit]

You reverted my edit to the Boris Johnson article. How long do you feel I have to wait before there is a consensus? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things:
  1. I'd expect a discussion to be open for at least a week before a decision is considered, unless the outcome is obvious very soon (WP:SNOW). This allows time for interested editors to see it and respond. If, after that time, the discussion is ongoing, it continues until activity has ended or a consensus is clear.
  2. There needs to be a consensus before a consensus can be declared!
Other editors might give different answers, but this one is close to normal, I believe, for people who don't answer with 'it depends...'. EddieHugh (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz Truss[edit]

Hello, that page is getting a bashing today. What has gone on with her name, as it's hard to see the history on a mobile? I saw your summary about 'No sources for name!' The Lead is also being constantly changed – and incorrectly. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page protection expired, so anyone could edit it. That's now been restored. The name has a source, although sources probably copy what's there. The lead's grammar looks fine now. The next stage is the POV pushers and the editors who argue that 'this journalist/campaigner/organisation said something and it is in a source, so it should be in the article'... but that continues (at least) until a political leader is no longer a political leader. EddieHugh (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK academics and NPROF C5[edit]

Just writing here to say that I agree that a full professorship in the UK doesn't automatically grant NPROF C5. Some editors feel strongly that it does (but I think that this is a minority point of view). I think that it _is_ a widely held point of view that a full professor at a major research university is _often_ notable, but often does not mean always, and notability should be backed. Since I'm talking about academic notability: The Journal of the London Math Society looks like to me the kind of journal discussed in WP:NPROF C8 -- you can compare impact factors with other math journals on the journals tab of MathSciNet (if you're on a university/similar IP address); it's also quite an old journal, and it's run by a fairly large academic society. There are a lot of !votes at the John Truss AfD that are not very well-based in policy. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truss page misogyny[edit]

With all due respect, I had zero (0) intention to display characteristics of being condescending or misogynistic (strong descriptions).

I will not revert the reversion, as I agree with you that it’s unnecessary trivia that is not needed as 3rd is not significant, unlike 1st.

I had no intention to display misogynistic characteristics (the hatred of or having strong prejudice against women). The statement wasn’t intended in a condescending or scornful way either. As for my reasons for having done that: Just simply pointing out the trivial fact that she was the 3rd female PM. This info was displayed noteworthy on mainstream news outlets. 3rd is a high number as most countries have not have had 3 female leaders, aside from a few countries. Theresa May’s page indicates her as the 2nd female. I added it as noticed some other 3rd female leaders pages has the same indicated.

No misogynistic intent, although it could have the potential to be taken the wrong way - as we do not do this “third female” or “fourth female” or “fifth female” etc for men, it is condescending to do it for women.

Have a good day Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for the reasonable response. I'll cut the "second woman" content from May's page, too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over Reaching Changes of Good Faith Efforts[edit]

Why do you keep changing my addition, the guy played that character on Gunsmoke - I cited the episode, it is accurate. Stop inserting yourself in my updates and go check the episode on YouTube. Cduffynyc (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a reliable source: see WP:RS. 'I know it's true' doesn't count. Anyone could anything if we allowed that. We probably can't point to YouTube unless it's definitely not a copyright violation. The burden to supply a verifiable source is on the editor who adds or restores material. So, find a reliable source, then add the material with the full citation. EddieHugh (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]