User talk:Jgcarter/Archive 3

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ThisIsMe Retail.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ThisIsMe Retail.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending your comments to the page of Freakum Dress

Thank you for adding your feelings and comments about the deletion of the page of Freakum Dress. That page will be useful so help me protect that page from unlogged-in destroyers. The page provides a good information, doesn't it? -- Adam levine ian bagg 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why does Freakum Dress page deleted?

You know, I was disappointed about WikiPedia because they delete the song, Freakum Dress. It provides good information and many users made it remain and only one signs in as delete. -- Adam levine ian bagg 02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hymnsatheartpromo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hymnsatheartpromo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winans family

05:13, 24 August 2007 Jgcarter (Talk | contribs) (6,582 bytes) (linked to PureSprings Gospel and removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus nor are there any sources plus it was not NPOV)

Greetings!

This Matthew Winans thing is a curly one. Would you mind having a look at the Revision history please?

removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus
Yes, I agree. You'll notice that I made an almost identical comment myself, viz:
02:44, 22 August 2007 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (7,781 bytes) (Although a family member, Matthew Winans is almost irrelevant to this article, which focuses on the Gospel Music involvement of the Winans family. Also, there are no sources quoted.)

I discussed the matter with Bobo192:

21:12, 21 August 2007 Bobo192 (Reverted edits by 70.176.109.143 (talk) to last version by 70.108.118.206)

As an explanation, the above is useless. It just says what you did (which is obvious anyway and doesn't require explanation.)
It doesn't say why you did it.

I know why you did it (the addition is irrelevant), but I imagine that newer contributors have no idea. This is evidenced by the fact that 70.176.109.143 and particularly Mastariale21 (who is a brand new user) have gone to quite some effort to restore and improve it. (Mastariale21 spent over an hour on it.)

Although strongly tempted to revert it all myself (just like you did), I'm loath to discourage a new user by doing this. So instead I've attempted to make it seem more relevant ... Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I simply reverted the edits made by this anonymous user, as you go on to state, the article did in itself need lots of cleanup which I felt I wasn't able to do by myself, knowing little about the subject matter. Thank you very much for taking this job on yourself. Hopefully this kind of incident will not happen too often from here on. Bobo . 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's irrelevant; I know very little about professional basketball, but I do know it has nothing to do with gospel music!

I'm afraid this sort of incident happens quite frequently, particularly with new users. I'm going through another one at the moment with Matt Bianco. Cheers, Pdfpdf 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it still needs more work, but I think it was making progress, and hence I also think you may have been a bit too quick-off-the-mark removing it. It's only been there for 3 days, and a lot of work has been done on it in that time, and it has been improved dramatically. It would be a shame to throw all that work away, particularly when doing so would also discourage a new user.

nor are there any sources
I disagree. When I made my edit comment, there were indeed no sources. There are now some, but I agree that there are several important ones missing. (Knowing nothing about professional basketball, I've exhausted my ability to find them!)

plus it was not NPOV
Really? I thought I'd been fairly successful toning it done, and thought I'd achieved NPOV. Please point out those bits which you feel are not NPOV - I'd like to learn the error of my opinions.

So, where do we go from here?
I'd like to reinstate it for a while in the hope that it gets sufficiently improved to be tolerated. If it doesn't get out of the substandard category within a week or two, we'll need to review the situation.
Note, however, that (like you) I still think it's irrelevant, but maybe it can be justified, particularly if we're trying to nurture a new user?

I'd like to read what you think about all this.
Regards, Pdfpdf 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your concerns about the new user but I think if we send him/her a message, they'll understand. I mean, the article is geared towards the musical family...I could understand if Matthew was one of the Winans kids but he's their third cousin or something like that. Honestly, he just isnt pertinent to the article. As for the NPOV statement, the main problem were statements like "his love and passion is basketball" which make it sound more like an advertisement. Granted, this only occured once or twice but nonetheless its there. Also, theres way too much information on him here, more than the actual Winans family are given (granted, many of them have their own pages). Why dont we just make Matthew his own page and then under the trivia section say "The Winans are cousins of basketball player Matthew Winans". I think thats the best compromise...what do you think? Best wishes! Jgcarter 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. (Conversations are a lot easier when everyone agrees with each other, aren't they!) Yes, sending him/her a message would be a good approach. (Though perhaps someone should "Welcome" him/her first? The talk page is still a red link!) Yes, Matthew is irrelevant to this page. On the NPOV, fair enough. Thanks. And yes, there is way too much data. (Don't know if I'd class it as information yet!)

In theory, I like the "separate page" plan. My only problem is, is Matthew sufficiently notable to merit his own page? Cheers, Pdfpdf 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's way past bed-time here (2am). I've got to get up at 7am and take the kids to sport. I'll continue the conversation in about 8 hours. Pdfpdf 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its so good when we just all agree and compromise :-). Yeah, it probably would be a good idea to leave a welcome thing on the talk page and then remove the useless info. I mean, you're right, he doesnt merit his own page...I think just saying that they're related to him is enough. I'm actually packing to go away for the weekend so I'll talk to you then. Have a nice day! Jgcarter 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's turning into a beautiful day here, thanks. The trees are in blossom and there's a touch of spring in the air, even though, technically, it's still winter. It's nice to feel the warm sun on your back.
I hope you enjoyed your weekend away.

Rather than completely deleting Mastariale21's hard work, I'll look into the viabilitly of incorporating it into the Las Vegas Stars (basketball team) page; that way we can sort-of-redirect interested parties to a more relevant page without throwing the work away. It will have the added advantage of showing Mastariale21 all sorts of things about how WP works, but give a positive solution rather than a negative one. I had in mind something like:
Basketballer Matthew Winans, the son of Mary and Norman Winans, is a second cousin of David "Pop" Winans. (Norman Winans is a cousin of Pop Winans.)
However, to be truthful, I'd rather spend my time on music (where I have an interest and knowledge) than professional minor league basketball (where I have negative interest and even less knowledge. (Can you have negative knowledge, or is the minimum zero?)).
---
Meanwhile, thanks for the Alvin III information.
However, it does make me wonder why he's called Alvin Winans. (i.e. Why isn't he using his father's surname? Perhaps "Alvin Winans" is his "stage name" because his "real" name doesn't have the same obvious links to gospel music? Or maybe he's the product of a relationship rather than a marriage, and hence that's why he uses her name. I'll have to do some looking around.)
Also, I wonder if Alvin Snr, Alvin Jr and/or Alvin II ever existed, and if so, who they were.
In any case, it sounds like he should also be mentioned on the Winans family page ...
Well, I'm off to enjoy some of this beautiful warm sunshine. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Winans III vs Alvin Love III; what about Alvin Love II; and let's leave Albert out of this!!

I somehow managed to get myself thoroughly confused, and probably got you confused too.
I initially read your posting on my page as Alvin Winans III. Re-reading is now I see it says nothing of the sort!!
Let's see if I've got it right this time:

There's no such person as ~~Albert~~ Alvin Winans III.
CeCe's husband is Alvin Love, and their son is Alvin Love III

Right?
(So what happened to Alvin Love Jr/Alvin Love II ??) Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no Albert Winans/Love...that was a typo. Yes, CeCe married Alvin II and her son is Alvin III. So Alvin I must be CeCe's father in-law. Jgcarter 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's Law prevails! Ambiguity and confusion reign supreme!! I made yet another error!!!
Try again:

There's no such person as Alvin Winans III.
CeCe's husband is Alvin Love II, and their son is Alvin Love III.

Have I got it right this time? Pdfpdf 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Winans - "Case Closed"?

Yes, that's MUCH better, isn't it!! I really like the fact that you got it down to under one line, and I really hope that's the end of it! Best Wishes, Pdfpdf 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]