User talk:Vmavanti

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

Record Labels[edit]

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels had a barnstar to hand out, I'd certainly give it to you. Thanks for all the improvements, they are greatly appreciated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Actually, I may be able to help with the photo thing. It depends on what you need. That was something in which I have a good amount of advice or info. If not me, there are two others who also have added a bulk of photos as well that I can point you to if it's beyond my reach right now. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, just 17.37% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities for January:

Prisoners Fashion designers Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing links to DAB pages[edit]

Keep up the good work, and keep the pressure on. I hope that you beat me in this month's DAB Challenge – because if you do, I will have the pleasure of awarding you a very rare barnstar. Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Super Disambiguator's Barnstar.png The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links.
This award is presented to Vmavanti, for successfully fixing 2297 links in the challenge of January 2018. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of January 2018.

I seriously think that some of the headline numbers in WP:TDD could soon be down to four figures if WP:DPL members keep the pressure on. Have you considered signing up? {{Ping}} me if you'd like some links. Narky Blert (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

district HQ[edit]

Hi. Thanks for fixing the disamb. I see you work a lot in that field, so just an FYI, "district" is a collection of many cities/villages/towns; and district HQ is a city. Like in this edit, Deulgaon tad is a village, Jalna, Maharashtra is a city that is in turn hq for Jalna district. Thanks a lot again! See you around. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 03:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


{{DPL topicon}} and {{WikiGnome topicon}} are fun things to add to your Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Stumper list[edit]

The Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Stumper list seems to have been very successful. Do you have more pages for it? You could either release a few dozen every few days and move any outstanding ones into a "super stumper" list, or just dump the whole list there if it's available or easy to create. Alternatively, if you have a method for identifying these pages, just let me know and I can do the job myself. Thanks, Certes (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I like this initiative. When I signed up to WP:DPL, there were something like 11,800 tags in Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation. I helped get that down to c. 4,700 (I may have solved half of those problems, but certainly no more than that.) Now that the count is down below 2,400, it looks like a good time to invite other editors into specific problems for concerted attacks. (I have had some success in reaching out to various WP:WIKIPROJECTs for help. Some are very good – knowledgeable, and keen to get articles in their speciality right. Three WikiProjects have failed to address any issue which I have raised, and are, in my frank opinion, for that reason, useless. They have a common characteristic: all relate to the same topic area, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A DABfixer's tip[edit]

If you come across a link from one DAB page to another but improperly linked (usually as a see-also), the trick is to (a) add a (disambiguation) qualifier to the link in the source page, (b) open the redlink you've just made, and (c) redirect it to the proper place. See e.g. Cox and how I fixed the problem.

If you come across a DAB page with no (disambiguation) redirect into it, it is always right to create that redirect.

Unless, of course, the target already has a qualified name, because double qualifiers are no-nos. Then is the time to scream, shout, move a page, create a WP:SIA, ask for help, or give up in despair. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Vmavanti (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Neuages Jazz[edit]

Hi, the reason I deprodded this was the claim of "being voted the best jazz group in Ecuador and have released four albums so far." That is quite a big claim of being best in Equador so requires further investigation especially as the link is outdated so ill try to verify it tomorrow. I've just seen your userpage and see you are a jazz expert so I assume you don't believe the claim? Please feel free to take to AFD and I won't oppose unless I can find verification of the claim and coverage in reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Expert? No, but thanks for the compliment. So you are taking at face value the claims about this group? It's interesting to me that in certain situations people don't look for proof. In other situations they demand absolute proof, and when they get it, they still refuse to accept it. The mysteries of human behavior. Is being the best jazz band in Ecuador a big deal? I don't know. It's a small country. I wonder what jazz sounds like in Ecuador. Hot? Hot jazz? Regardless of my opinion, I'm more interested in sources since they form the basis of our judgment. You said the band was significant, so I was curious where you found sources. I'm always on the lookout for reliable sources. They are hard to find, esp. in music, esp. in jazz. My experience has been that sometimes when some people deprod articles, it's because they are working from assumptions and interests outside the rules and documentation of Wikipedia. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it does create problems. I don't have strong feelings about this article or any other. I do care about the facts and about the quality of Wikipedia. I try to base my judgments about articles on the rules and not on my opinions.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I take your point but it as much for the prodder to carry out WP:BEFORE as the deprodder, for example you could have enquired at the Equador WikiProject and in these old articles it is better to try and fix dead links using internet archive and rather than delete them, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe. I did some searching. I'm not frivolous about these things. Common sense will tell you that an Ecuadorean jazz band isn't going to have many sources. Nuages Jazz has been sitting around for many years, and it's hardly been touched. It was created in 2007. How much more time has to pass before someone like me takes the initiative? Every Wikiproject has a long cleanup listing of articles that need to be addressed. These are the articles that get swept under the carpet. I don't sweep under the carpet. Just keeping the wheels going doesn't interest me. I want to get something done, and there's plenty to do. There are people on Wikipedia who exclusively pursue "their interests", "their specialities", "their desires", "their causes". OK up to point, but this is volunteer work. It is work, and work usually has little to do with fun or following one's passion. I've already done more about this article than anyone in ten years.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ralph J. Gleason[edit]

When you use the word "promotion" you seem to be implying that Gleason was compensated for his enthusiastic review of "'Round About Midnight." This could not be further from the truth.

If you had been there in 1957, and if your appreciation of jazz was as finely tuned and sensitive as you believe it to be, you may too have been able to recognize what a special musical treasure "'Round About Midnight" truly is.

For you to have the gall to edit a quotation by one of the giants of jazz writing (among his many other accomplishments) is going too far, even for a "know-it-all" Wikipedian like yourself.

If you were half as smart as you think you are, then you would be twice as smart as you really are.

Think about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A1:1530:78E2:87D5:BE9A:C8CB (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. You put words in my mouth, you read between the lines, and you assert opinions as though they were facts. I've never said my appreciation of jazz is finely tuned or sensitive. Can you show me where I said that? I have never suggested Ralph Gleason was paid for his review, though I assume that he was paid something because in 1957 journalists did not work for free, they worked for money like the rest of us. Perhaps to you Ralph Gleason is a "giant of jazz" writing whose sacred words must be obeyed and not touched. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But it's an opinion, not a fact. I don't need anyone's permission to edit a quotation so long as I do it correctly. I learned how to handle citations in a bad American public school when I was thirteen. I continued to deal with citations and sources through graduate school and the workplace. I have never claimed to know it all. I do claim to know a few things. I know the difference between a fact and an opinion. I know how to write and edit. I know how to deal with sources and citations and quotations. If you have a dictionary handy, you'll see that the word "promote" means support, encourage, publicize, increase awareness, further the progress of something. That doesn't necessarily mean money. Regardless, reviews ought not to promote. More importantly, Wikipedia has nothing to do with promotion or publicity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents facts. Here's the text that you are talking about. Let's look at it.
"First, let me say that you should buy this LP immediately. Perhaps even two copies, since you may wear out one playing it and you will want another. This is the kind of album to which one returns to time and time again because it is, in it’s way, a perfect thing, a slice of modern jazz conceived and executed in the very best style."
This quotation has almost zero content. The only substance is a thin comment that the album is modern jazz. I prefer to eliminate the entire quotation. I doubt I've ever added a review to Wikipedia. I wish people wouldn't do it. Reviews are opinions and Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts. The problem with this quotation is it doesn't say why the album is good. The first sentence is a command—go buy the album, maybe two, and listen to it. That's dumb. The second sentence says the album is perfect. Really? Perfect? It what sense? I don't know. He doesn't say. This is cheerleading, not analysis. Cheerleading is okay at basketball games. Hurray, team, let's go team. Nowhere have I said I like this album or dislike it. I have said that Wikipedia's purpose is to communicate facts, not to tell people what records to listen to. There are plenty of other outlets for that kind of thing on the internet, on television, and in books, magazines, and newspapers.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


Down to 5,198! In 2007, Harold Ivory Williams should probably be deleted. I'm starting in 2011 and moving forward through the list chronologically; no reason why, but it's somewhere to start and is more systematic than what I was doing before. (And I add a jazz class & importance to each talk page when finished, improving that problem too.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

One week later: 76 resolved, 90 added; net effect... up to 5,212. I'm switching to a faster, stricter approach. I'm going through the cn list by date, picking those which have only cn tags as a stated problem. All info with a cn tag from years ago gets cut from the article. Then on to the next one. Should be able to get lots done. EddieHugh (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I would still like to get under 5000 by the end of December. In some cases, there are too many citation tags on the articles. Deleting those affects the Cleanup listing. If I add a 2018 ref tag, it shows up as a new article on the listing. We've been here long enough to know who is working on jazz, so one template on top is usually enough to indicate work is needed. We usually don't need section templates or sentence templates given that both of us want the entire article to have inline citations. Grand unsourced claims from ten years ago can be deleted. Better that than Wikipedia committing fraud and giving people false information. Those body tags don't seem to do much good. Not in jazz, anyway. I'm working on 2007 and 2008. If nothing else, we'll be able to say Wikiproject Jazz has a ten year backlog rather than a twelve year backlog.

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tim Berne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of Billy Strayhorn edit removing dead link / paywall source[edit]

I revert your edit to Billy Strayhorn edit removing dead link / paywall source for two reasons. Your edit was against policy as per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." While not a policy or guideline, as per WP:KDL, "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. [...] Place {{dead link}} after the dead URL and just before the </ref> tag if applicable, leaving the original link intact." Peaceray (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Every week a new Cleanup Listing comes out for Wikiproject Jazz. There's always a new list of dead links. What do you suggest I do if these links? Second, although I know the policy, I thought I had made clear in my edit summary that it's better to avoid making things difficult for the reader. If possible, and it usually is, people ought to find sources other than pay sources, otherwise a footnote really serves no purpose because it can't be checked by the reader. Keep in mind the reader. Keep in mind the audience. Who are we working for? Them. The purpose of a footnote is so people can check sources themselves. Pay sources prohibit that. Not everyone can afford pay sources. So, on this point, too, I ask: What do you suggest I do with that? You care a lot about this article. That's good. Would you be willing to work on it to get rid of the problems? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow, there is a lot in those statements that I feel is at odds with the Wikimedia statement of purpose: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally".
  • Again, the WP:SOURCEACCESS portion of the verifiability policy states: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." The important thing here is that somebody needs to be able to verify it, *not* everyone.
  • If we eliminated all sources that "can't be checked by the reader", that would also mean eliminating print-only sources. What is wrong with citing a book of which there are only six copies in the US. Yes, I have encountered this very situation.
  • Verifying statements when the only reliable source(s) are behind paywalls represents nothing less that the liberation of that information. Unverified statements can be removed at anytime. When the only citation available is behind a paywall, to not use it to verify has the potential to seriously diminish Wikipedia & deny the free flow of information to the reader. The presence in Wikipedia may represent the only availability of that information outside of closed access sources.
  • "Not everyone can afford pay sources" is a true statement. But there are alternatives. For some, a trip to a library or a university that does have access to paywalled sources is an option. For those who cannot access that way, WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is an option.
  • When there is an open/free source available, I wholeheartedly advocate using that. I am in alignment with The Wikipedia Library Strives for Open Access, but not to the exclusion of paywall or print-only sources when nothing else is available.
You asked "What do you suggest I do?"
  • First, I would suggest you do due diligence. In the case of the Billy Strahorn article, you removed a dead link that I later restored then resolved. I went to that web site, found it had a search function, so I searched for Billy Strahorn, found an article, grabbed the DOI, put it into Citer. Simple & easy! I did add {{Closed access}} after the ref tag & before the citation template & also the |subscription=y parameter. If a site for a dead link has no search function, then you can plop the search name & the Google search parameter site: into Google. For example: paywall
  • Second, leave dead links be! There is likely at some point some SME who will eventually come along & solve the problem. It might be messy, look unfinished, & take a long time, but hey, the Wikipedia globe logo is unfinished for a reason. The work of building an encyclopedia is never done.
You asked "Would you be willing to work on it to get rid of the problems?" Um, for what reason do you think I am here? After welcoming users, reverting vandalism, & warning vandals, you will find that my next priority is improving citations, whether that is changing bare URLs into citation templates, adding OCLC numbers to books, resolving dead links, or using Harvard referencing & shortened footnotes, & et cetera. I am a former part-time university reference librarian, after all.
Peaceray (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this debate. Both of you make good points. As the old expression goes, "There is much to be said on both sides." Anyway, I've been busy (aren't we all?), but I didn't have to scurry around to find a good replacement source, as I own a copy of a book with the information, so I made the substitution. In the process, I noticed that 1934 seems way too early for the Malone arranging, so I changed that year. The article could use a lot more work. For example, why repeat all the bibliographical info in each citation, when that source is in the "Sources" section? I'll dip in later if I get the chance. Oh, and, Peaceray, sorry to have indirectly undone your work on updating that link, but, of course a free source (if you can find a copy of the book in a public library) is better than a source closed to all but subscribers. --Alan W (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. That improves the article. That's the goal, not debating about who is right.
Vmavanti (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alan W: There is no reason why a paywall citation cannot coexist with other citations. Peaceray (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Peaceray: Please don't get me wrong. I did not replace that paywall citation because I believe paywall citations have no place here (and if I had believed that, you have just argued so persuasively in favor of leaving them alone, at least until they can be replaced by something better, that you would have changed my mind). I replaced it because, as it happened, when I looked at the Strayhorn article, it occurred to me that I own a reliable source that not only is not behind a paywall, it might be a better source. That turned out to be the case. (At least I am assuming it is better; since the paywall source was behind that paywall, I was not inclined to pay just to compare the two sources.) When I reread the passages in the book that apply to that part of the article, I saw that the previous "after 1934" could be made much more precise by changing it to "after 1937", the year Strayhorn started to become involved with jazz arrangements.
Again, I didn't jump in here to take sides. I find discussions like this involving tricky or debatable aspects of Wikipedia editing very stimulating. And since it happened to work out that finding a better source for the passage in question was as easy for me as walking a few feet and picking off a shelf a book that I happen to own and rereading a few things, I figured, why not? Both of you keep up the great work you're doing here; I will try to keep contributing what I can myself. Regards, Alan W (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Alan W, my comment was meant as an FYI, not a criticism. Peaceray (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Peaceray, thanks for clarifying. If it seemed like you had misconstrued me, well, I had already just read your very well argued explanation of your views on the subject, so I thought you were then addressing me because you thought my views of the matter were at odds with yours. Now, at any rate, it's clear to me we are on the same page. (Literally and figuratively, come to think of it. :-) And since this is Vmavanti's talk page, I'll mention that I have been looking into sprucing up the citations, etc., in the Strayhorn article, but, well, sheesh, there are an awful lot of ways of doing these things, aren't there? I'll come up with some kind of improvement, I guess. --Alan W (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice :)[edit]

Vm - just read a few of your remarks, not sure what an adult is doing here but thought I'd give you a thumbs up. Nice :) (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey[edit]

Hi Vmavanti

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey:



Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)