User talk:Nomoreads

December 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Army of the Pharaohs has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Army of the Pharaohs was changed by Nomoreads (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2013-12-15T09:31:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoreads, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Nomoreads!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If your gonna keep removing sources you have to replace them first, reliable or not they need to be replaced. Koala15 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. From now on, I'll replace self-published sources such as hiphop-n-more.com with Template:Citation needed instead of just removing them. Nomoreads (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing HipHop-N-More & other sources

Hello, I noticed you recently started removing a number of sources per WP:SPS, such as Hip Hop N More, which has been considered a reliable enough source. The Source compared its quality of posts to websites such as HipHopDX, even though it's a self-published magazine. Furthermore, you did not replace the references with others, which you would believe are more notable, as Koala15 pointed in the post above. This results in a lot of unsourced information, so please stop removing such sources if you cannot find a more notable replacement. 2Flows (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs such as hiphoplt.com and hiphop-n-more.com are not reliable sources, but self-published sources. WP:SPS states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Having said that, from now on, I'll replace self-published sources such as hiphop-n-more.com with Template:Citation needed instead of just removing them. See also WP:BURDEN. I don't have to "find a more notable replacement". Nomoreads (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about hip hop blogs its that hiphop-n-more.com is a very well known blog in which most reliable hip hop blogs get there exclusives from, even if you consider it unreliable you should be replacing the sources not with citation needed tags but with real sources. The WP:BURDEN is on you. Koala15 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material" (WP:BURDEN). It doesn't matter whether if hiphop-n-more.com is "very well known" or not. See WP:SPS. Nomoreads (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your really not helping the encyclopedia by removing sources. And it seems as if you have something personal against these blogs. Koala15 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have something personal against these blogs. We can't use blogs like these in Wikipedia per WP:SPS, so I keep replacing them with Template:citation needed. No more and no less. Please feel free to add reliable sources. Nomoreads (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could become reliable one day, and i think it would have been more appropriate to use "better source?" tags. Koala15 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what WP:SPS states, but don't forget that these are guidelines, not rules - "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In the hip-hop community HipHop-N-More is well known and considered reliable, even though it is self-published, so keeping it as a source until you have a better one to replace it with makes "common sense". Even though what you do follows the guidelines, I agree with Koala that you are not helping the wikipedia by removing sources and not replacing them with better ones. 2Flows (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:V, including WP:SPS, is a Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. A rule is a rule. --Nomoreads (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really shows that you are a lazy editor that you can't manually replace the sources. If you really cared about the encyclopedia you would manually replace them. Koala15 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhh, HipHop-N-More is pretty unreliable, but it does not need to be removed or replaced in cases of the information not being controversial. But since two editors disagreed with its removal you should start a discussion at the WP:RSN and if it is proven unreliable, no one can disagree. STATic message me! 04:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing headphonecommute.com as a reliable source

Please refrain from defacing Wikipedia entries by selectively removing a single reliable source featuring artist interviews. The cited link paragraph in your edits is only a Guideline and does not constitute a rule. You are doing a disservice to an entire musical community by specifically targeting a single source. If you feel that the links do not add any value to the article, why don't you not purge all others as well?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmadeus (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it does not matter whether if headphonecommute.com is "a reliable source" or not. Please see WP:ELPOINTS, which states: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Your recent editing behavior is clearly against the spirit of WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTLINK. See also WP:OSE. Nomoreads (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But how can you explain removing one source while leaving all others. Take for instance Tim Hecker page where references to interviews on other sites have been left untouched. I feel like one specific site is being singled out, as you're not applying a blanket policy to the rest of the sources. -asmadeus (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]