Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 27 May 2008

Ye Olde Rules and Common Sense

1) Questions you ask here will be answered here. Unless they are remarkably rude. Then they go "elsewhere".
2) Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things ~~~~
3) I did not delete "your" page or block you. I am not an admin. I may have suggested that the page should be deleted or that you earned a block.
4) I cannot undelete "your" page or unblock you. I am still not an admin (see #2, above).
5) Yes, it's true: I am a physically handicapped, lesbian Quaker who once lost a drinking contest with a notable nun. I'm not telling you her name and there is really no point to this rule, but you have to admit it's a great story.
6) Please do not assume I am stupid, lazy or "out to get you" (or your favorite non-notable whatever). We probably just disagree.
7) Remarkably bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling or simple mockery.
8) Stop doing that right now. You know what I mean.
9) No shirt, no shoes, no dice.
10) Mdsummermsw reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Thank you. -- The Management.

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3

Philadelphia Election Riot (1742)

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Election Riot (1742), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "...that the Philadelphia Election Riot of 1742 between the Anglicans and the Quakers of Philadelphia was caused because they were unable to agree on who would supervise the election?" - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

I've been considering starting a WikiProject to clean up the "unreleased album" category (as I'm sure you well know, it's definitely going to take a group effort). If you might be interested, I've started trying to write it up here. —Hello, Control 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dear Jayne

An editor has nominated Dear Jayne, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages 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 by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dear Jayne and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobbi Starr

I´ve added a link to the Bobbi Starr article and you keep removing. WHY? You probably haven´t read what i was linking to and just deleted it because you felt like it. I dont have anything to do with the site, i linked to, i linked to it, because its good and relevant to the bobbi starrs article. Please refrain from deleting the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.181.129 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you are connected to that website is irrellevant. The link you added there (and similar links elsewhere), which you describe as "Her bondage and submission scenes described in details", is not encyclopedic. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chor Leoni Men's Choir

I have left my opinions regarding your speedy deletion tag on the article page itself. I note musical group notability criterion no. 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The CBC Choral Competition is THE major national competition for amateur choirs in Canada. Chor Leoni has won 4 times and placed twice in the last twelve years of this biennial competition, ie. every time the choir has entered the competition. Surely the CBC's confirmation of at least one of those wins on the CBC's (not Chor Leoni's) website is sufficiently reliable. The choir has been reviewed and reported in the Vancouver Sun (the city's major) newspaper. Should I be quoting those as well as the 3rd party article which I referenced from the Vancouver Foundation (the city's major arts charity)- or will such behaviour result in another "spam" tag and threat of imminent deletion? For the record, the CBC, the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Foundation are not related to Chor Leoni in any way. Finally, (yes, finally), I note that other "notable men's choirs" seem immune from such qualifying standards. For example, "Victoria Scholars" continues to reside in the "notable men's choirs" list but Chor Leoni Men's Choir has been summarily removed from that list. Yet Victoria Scholars links only to an article page with NOT ONE reference and only one award mentioned. There are NO requests for references on that article and it is not "chastized" or threatened with speedy deletion. Can you understand my frustration and confusion? Vivo4 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for your frustration and confusion. We are (or at least should be) trying to correct the article -- not you or your article. This response is rather long, but you've raised a number of questions and I want to cover it all.

I did not see a clear assertion of notability, I saw an assertion that a prize was won that showed no signs of notability. If we didn't know the Grammies were notable, a link to their website wouldn't show us they were, a link to newspaper articles about them (or a link to a[REDACTED] article about them) would.

The CBC Choral Competition does not have an article. Perhaps it should.

The CBC's listing of its winners is a primary source -- the organization listing its winners. I tagged the article for primary sources because the notability of the prize is the basis for the choirs notability. Independant coverage of the awards -- such as a newspaper article about the awards -- would satisfy that concern.

The Vancouver Sun ref was not there when I tagged the article.

The Vancouver Foundation is related to the choir, providing funding and managing their endowment. That their website covers them is not evidence of notability, though their coverage might be a good source for information.

I did not tag the article as spam as I did not see the article in that light at all. My concerns were reflective of the general nature of wikipedia. New articles tend to fall into several broad categories:

• "daughter" articles - "Discography of Jane Smith", "Culture of Westakistan" and such
• hoaxes - the subject never existed
• spam - Fred Banks is the greatest singer in the world and you should buy his album if it ever comes out.
• vandalism - an attack "article" about the kid who picked on the editor during recess.
• new, clearly notable topics - these are getting rarer: current events generate some, many of the rest tend to be historical or filling in gaps. I recently added an article about a smallish election riot in 18th century Philadelphia that changed the direction of the city and state's governance for the next 50 to 100 years. If it had happened in in 1995 the article would have been there years ago.
• new, not-so-clearly notable topics - the topic might be notable, but the documentation isn't presented to support it (lots of first efforts fall into this category)
• new, non-notable topics - these are distressingly common: someone's favorite gym teacher; a small, local custom that someone feels strongly about; someone in the news for a brief time (lots of murder victims and murderers); minor, local activities (school sports teams, community theaters, PTA chapters and, yes, lots of volunteer choirs).

In that last category, the local activities are commonly added by members of the organization or their supporters. They often have a conflict of interest: how notable is that achievment they worked so hard for? Can they be proud of the achievment while admitting it is "notable" to very few people? Over time,[REDACTED] has come to expect large numbers of these articles. So many, in fact, that not asserting notability is taken to mean the group is not notable and the article is axed. Later eveidence that the activity is notable allows for easy recreation of the article (through deletion review or simply starting anew).

The remaining problem is making sure the good-faith editors -- whether their topic was or was not truly notable -- don't get the wrong idea. Again, we are (or should be) trying to correct the article -- not you or your article. Yeah, we might need to guide new editors, as eventually happened here, or shut down persistent vandals, but the main thing should be the article.

• Incidentally, I did not remove the choir from the list, I removed its duplicate entry from the list. (Had the article been deleted, I would have removed it.) True, it fits under more than one category. I left it under male choirs and removed it under volunteer. It's a judgement call. We should probably reshuffle the list into mutually exclusive categories: "male, volunteer choirs", "female, volunteer choirs" and the like. Maybe someone will. Feel up to it? I'll help, but I'm not doing it alone any time soon.

Are there other choir articles that need work? You bet. Are there some that should probably be deleted? I'd be shocked if there weren't. It is constantly a work-in-progress, much like many other things: a teacher helping one student while others need help as well, a cop working on one case while others need work too, etc. If you'd like to work on that, feel free to dig in. The more minds and the broader the experience applied to the task the better. Ask around and you'll find others willing to help on a project they don't want to handle alone.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your full and thoughtful response to my comments, Mdsummer (your nickname is far too long for me to type out each time :) THIS is what I needed to hear. I realize that most people who've been around the system more than 15 minutes don't have the energy, time or inclination to explain what appears to them to be obvious, so I do appreciate your efforts (and time). I grant you that if I'd devoted myself to weeks of reading of Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines/suggestions/topic pages etc. etc. etc. I might eventually have twigged to the extent of the issues and how I might correct them. But with every new tag added to the Chor Leoni article and what felt like the threat of its immediate permanent "extinction" I felt enormous pressure to act quickly. (That's another thing. I'll try to be kind here since you might have had a hand in drafting Misplaced Pages's boilerplate, but as a former lawyer, well, let's just say something really could be done to improve it. But I'll leave that until I'm older and wiser in things Wikipedian.)

I'd like to take you up on your offer to adopt me. I just don't know how to do that.  :) I know we might have had "issues" at the outset but I'm made of sterner stuff than that. Besides, I know you know your stuff, and with your assistance, I know I can and will make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. I've been a user and admirer of reference texts all my life (I know, how boring) and hope to make my mark on this one. Who knows... there might even be some benefit in our association for you - some of my innate ability to spell might just rub off.  :)

With respect to the "list of choirs" and choir article pages, I'd love to help. I think the first problem as you suggest is in the structuring of the list. (That's another thing - I don't comprehend the distinction between lists and articles or how they are to be linked etc. But that aside.):

• I just don't see the utility of having "notable" anywhere as a designation in the "list of choirs". Presumably, if this is Misplaced Pages and the essence of an item's existence on Misplaced Pages is its notability, then notability should be a precursor for inclusion of any choir in any part of the list.
• How one sets a standard for the notability of a choir might be problematic, although personally I'd assume a minimum of one national or international choral competition win by the choir. But in any event, that standard should be spelled out at the beginning of the list, basically to warn off all those who assume they should include their choir there, just because.
• Given that professional choirs form a microscopic fraction of choirs in the world, the designation "volunteer" is superfluous. For example, there are essentially 3 professional choirs in Canada.
• Also the use of the word "volunteer" is probably not correct. It should read "amateur" as "volunteer" denotes unpaid work, whereas most choristers will tell you they sing for the love of singing.
• My designations would be "professional choirs, adult male choirs, adult female choirs, youth choirs (12-18 years of age), and children's choirs (under 12 years of age)". The adult choirs might be further broken down into "chamber choirs", "gospel and church choirs", "community choirs", and "university choirs" but then you might get more of the duplication you want to avoid. Such distinctions could easily be spelled out in any article or stub on each choir.

Simple, really. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo4 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. Unnecessary but much appreciated, especially coming from a tireless cruft-cleaner of your caliber. BTW, have you read WP:MUSIC#Albums lately? The current wording is pretty good, I think. Best —Hello, Control 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Goldyn Chyld

• It wasn't a reference to your "nuts" in the sexual sense but to the British idiom "taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut", for an overzealous approach. But it was rather uncalled-for. Apologies for that. My reasons for thinking the album is notable i summarised on the talk page, along with articles which i think substantiate my claim. tomasz. 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tales for Bad Girls

This is the bands second major studio album, which was released today April 4th, 2008(In germany at least). Their first studio album was extremely successful internationally, they provide links on their site. The and does not get as much coverage as it should, All of this information can be found on their site, which is extremely easy to cite, on their record labels site( which is extremely difficult to cite due to the format of the site), and various online metal magazines(which are also quite difficult to cite). Even so, I highly doubt anyone could find a reason to dispute any of the information on the page. I'm not that good at referencing, being new, so I can't figure out ow to add the the reference list, but I can (and have been) adding links to the actual information, so if a reader finds something unclear or suspicious, he or she can go directly to the source and judge for themselves. User:Blooderayne —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the notability guidelines for music... No you haven't, otherwise you'd realizes that a band(and therefore their album) is notable if they meat ANY of the requirements. Under Criteria for musicians or ensembles, article 5 states that a musician or ensemble is notable if the have released two or more albums on a major record label or one of the more important indies. Oh wait, maybe you can't count oh, dear. Forever slave has produced two major studio albums: 1. Alice's Inferno & 2. Tales for Bad Girls. Thats two, therefore it meets the notability requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooderayne (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wacken Records is clearly not a major record label. Ditto SPV. If either is "one of the more important indies" it is far from clear. The AfD discussion decided, with no evidence, that Wacken is Armageddon Music and that they put on the Wacken Open Air festival (which Armageddon, under the name Armageddon, does sponsor), though the festival is named for the town, not the later label at issue here. If you are arguing that they are signed to "one of the more important indies", you have a way to go yet. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forever Slave

Okay, obviously I'm not quite clear on the guidelines. I'm not sure what will give an artist notability and all. And I plan to do some more research on the band when I have the time. What is needed for notability? Is this sufficient (honors for Alice's Inferno):
+ Album of the Month in Metal Hammer (Spain)
+ Top 9 - French Sales charts
+ Top 19 in Sales charts by Heavy Rock
+ Top 27 Sales charts in Tipo (Spain)
+ 2nd band revelation 2005 by Heavy Rock, Kerrang Magazines and MariskalRock.com
Thanks, Violaillyria (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Album of the Month in Metal Hammer (Spain)

Not a clear notability criteria, but I'd include it.

Top 9 - French Sales charts

This would establish notability for the album and the band.

Top 19 in Sales charts by Heavy Rock

Depending on whose chart this is, this would establish notability for both as well.

Top 27 Sales charts in Tipo (Spain)

Depending on whose chart this is, this would establish notability for both as well.

2nd band revelation 2005 by Heavy Rock, Kerrang Magazines and MariskalRock.com

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

In any event, citing these items in the article would prevent deletion. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I've checked around. Tipo and Heavy Rock are (online?) magazines from Spain. So, I don't know if they help with the notability thing. As for the French Sales Charts, the Forever Slave website says that their French distributor. It is said, "Our French distributor has published the top sales band of the year in France. Alice's Inferno is in TOP 9!!" But other than that, I can't find records online from the distributor (plus, the distributor's website is in French...).

I'm not sure about the band revelations either, I looked it up and found it . The website's in Spanish, but can be translated to passable English. They won 2nd for what I'm guessing is "New Band" (translation says "disclosure" for revelacion). But it was won by readers' votes through rockreferendum 2005 which was published by the magazines Heavy Rock and Kerrang

maybe this will establish notability? well, it's worth a shot.Thanks, Violaillyria (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No

NO!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg5748 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP

See Diff Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious edit

You're right, it is strange... I do a lot of welcoming so it might be one of my edits... though I don't know how the user welcomed him/herself with my sig :S

A WM bug perhaps?-xC- 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Styles Of Beyond

Well, a lot of the info I get directly from one of the members of Styles Of Beyond themselves, so it's kinda hard to cite anything. Any ideas? Jay (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose there's good reasons for that, but it really leaves[REDACTED] lacking in available info... Thanks for the link anyway. Jay (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good reasons. Suppose you were writing about yourseld and wanted to, urm, "puff" a bit. Suddenly, you didn't merely sit in the nosebleed seats at a Paul McCartney concert, you provided uncredited guitar work on his last album. Or, scientific tests (that you can't cite) verify that the drug your company developed can prevent cancer. Or maybe the candidate you don't want to win the upcoming election did something truly unforgivable. Or... whatever. Heck, maybe you just misunderstood what you read or aren't remembering it quite right. Without citations, nothing could be done about it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely understand that, it is a little frustrating though when you have info that's legit and important and you can't have it in the article. Then again, I suppose that's where SOBCentral comes in... Jay (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The Truth" by Cherish

I have found numerous sources for the album release on CDUniverse and Amazon.com, as well as the group's website and myspace pages. It's coming May 13, so I will restore the info with the sources added. Tom Danson (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You around?

Mind taking a look at this page? --evrik  14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! --evrik  14:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay, a DYK.

On 27 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Lazaretto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

		The Liberty Star
		Thanks for your help on Philadelphia Lazaretto --evrik  03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't what I can add

I've looked at it. Does it have any relation to:

• Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia) ,

Location: 6th & Haines Sts., Philadelphia, Built on this site in 1838 by the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society as a meeting place for abolitionists, this hall was burned to the ground by anti-Black rioters three days after it was first opened.

--evrik  18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but Pennsylvania Hall was burned during one of the earlier riots. See . - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Add Lombard Street Riot to Template talk:Did you know. --evrik  19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and the geo coords. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

I had misread the timestamp for the last warning as this. My mistake. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Finished with my edits. I'll leave the sandbox now. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?

I would like to nominate you for administrator status, based on my observations of your edits, your overall good nature toward other editors, and your experience here on Misplaced Pages. Are you interested? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I appreciate the offer. At the moment, I'd like to hold off on that. Check back in a couple of months or so! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Recordings

Before you continue saying the page should have been deleted via PROD, please check the deletion log. It was deleted, but it was later contested, so the page was restored. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

SPC

SPC, K-Rino, Ganksta NIP are all notable. Please stop re-adding those tags-the articles do need to be improved. Instead try deleting some of the non-notable, bootleg compilations listed in the Dr. Dre discography. They are a burden upon[REDACTED] (anything released on Street Dance Records. )Cosprings (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am tagging the articles when I do not see a clear, supported assertion of notability. Telling me that you believe they are notable isn't helpful. Asserting and supporting their notability in the article is helpful. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jane Seymour pic

What's with the "not fair usage" ? She's most famous for the playing a bond girl so I don't see any problems with that pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn116 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NONFREE. Photos from copyrighted sources can only be used in very limited circumstances. For living people, it is generally assumed that a free-equivalent could be created. That is to say, if it is theoretically possible to take a picture of the person, we cannot use a copyrighted photo. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how am I suppose to fly to the United States of America to take a photo of a celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn116 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to. However, it is assumed that someone could take a photo of a living person. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

speedy tags

when you see a bad speedy tag, just remove it with an explanation. You do not need to be an admin to do this. But if the article looks bad even though not a valid speedy, you can simply change the tag to a PROD instead of totally removing it. If anyone ever challenges you on the authority to do this, refer them to WP:CSD & ask me for help if needed. DGG (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko?

If this is him, he's being smart enough to stay away from long talk-page posts. What do you think? Kww (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Could be, maybe not. I'm going to the pages as appropriate. Changes (Nicole Wray) looks to be a repost. I've put it up for a speedy on that basis. Otherwise, it's an un-sourced article on a non-notable album. The single is non-notable, so I've redirected it. We'll probably see a solid answer pretty quickly, so I'll wait. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't caught the repost possibility. That would clench it. I'll ask an admin to compare.Kww (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed —Hello, Control 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. It's gratifying when the system works. (He will, of course, be back.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lombard Street Riot

On 5 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lombard Street Riot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation errors

I would like to suggest that in the future when you encounter a citation error and the claim is doubtful (but not harmful) to article, use the {{fact}} tag, and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable amount of time. Removing the content tends to make people miss your point, which is apparently what happened on The Black Parade Is Dead!. See here for the specifics. – Zntrip 19:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is often a reasonable option. However, in the case of unreleased/future albums, I have found that there is far too much "churn" in the tracklist for that to be a workable solution. What tends to happen is a tracklist pops up, uncited. It's tagged {{cn}}, someone else comes along and moves a track or two, adds a track or two, changes some producers or guests and the tag is gone, or it stays up requesting a cite for a while, then comes down and immediately reappears in some other version. By killing the unsourced lists and alerting the editor who added the list with {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} the idea that unsourced lists won't last gets across. Then, the list might come back with a cite to a fanpage or a blog and it comes down for a reliable source. Pretty soon we either have a tracklist from a reliable source or a clear understanding that there simply isn't one available. That's what happened on The Black Parade Is Dead! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade Is Dead! Tracklist

Hi, you added a warning to my talk page about there not being a source for The Black Parade Is Dead! tracklist, however, I did add one to my edit summary which I said was available here. My edit summary said "Adding track list from http://mychemicalromance.com/blackparadeisdead/images/mcr_tracklisting_btn_ovr.jpg" which the history page is here. I hope this might fix any confusion.  Orfen  | _Contribs 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)