Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:17, 24 December 2016

Gabber

I think that you shouldn't change my addition to the Gabber page back to 190 bpm because I've seen in a VICE report video about the gabber scene and it clearly says that the gabber tempo can exceed 200 bpm, if you want to check it out, just search "gabber" on youtube ;) I've also heard that a particular subgenre of gabber, called speedcore, its tempo can be up to 1000-1500 bpm!!! Anyway, thank you for reading ;) ThanosS164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos S164 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thanos S164. I noticed a lot of your edits were unsourced, which was why I reverted them because I felt they were promotional. Please cite reliable sources in your edits. Creating new genre names aren't acceptable and would be disregarded as blatant hoax. - TheMagnificentist 20:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Candyland (musician)

I just wanted to thank you so much for saving my page, Candyland (musician)! There are not even words to explain my gratefulness for you. So... Thank you very much! It relieved me of a lot of stress

• I think it you asked me to update an article titled, Illenium. Well, I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about that article; I've just been very busy lately. A good old friend of mine, XPanettaa, desperately needed some help editing his pages Mike Hawkins (musician) and TV Noise because they were nominated for deletion, and he mentioned me in a number of people to help contribute to the following pages. So I decided to advocate for him and his page on the discussion. Afterwards, I really focused on those two pages a lot. Then in between that, two pages that I created, ID2 (song) and Zonk (song) were redirected by TheLongTone, leading to my unsuccessful attempt to explain why they needed to stay; as TheLongTone later referred to my reasoning with the pages as "fanboi dreck." And to top the stress, was Candyland facing imminent deletion upon Misplaced Pages. So that's really what's been keeping me from working on Illenium. I'll get to it though, and when I do it's going to be awesome.

• So yeah, thank you for the kind message you left on my talk page. I'm sorry my reply is so BIG. It would be great to just chat some time. Hope to hear from you soon. Goodnight, TheMagnificentist. P.s., I would have placed this message at the end of the list for the sake of convenience, but when I tried to do so the editing pencil wouldn't appear. So I just clicked on the editing pencil at the top of the page. Sorry. :/

Infopage100 (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Infopage100: I do support you but I cannot do anything as I'm trying to be more careful now after getting unblocked. I wouldn't want to get into any unnecessary problems that would get me blocked again. I can only suggest that you acknowledge the reason you got blocked and be sincere while requesting for an unblock. - TheMagnificentist 13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to sign

Sorry.... I left a message that said Hello, there!, but forgot to sign. Once again, sorry. :)

Infopage100 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)user:infopage100Infopage100 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• >Hello, there!

Hello, TheMagnificentist, nice work with the Mako (DJ duo) page. Thanks for creating it. I see lots of Misplaced Pages users create sloppy pages, and sometimes I wish they had not even created those pages. So to see someone create a well-developed page like you did with Mako, that makes my day. So thanks, much love, and have a good day. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infopage100 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

The following sections from this talk page have been archived to the talk page's subpage:

• Multiple speedy deletion nominations
• File permission problem with File:Edward Maya.png
• Replaceable fair use
• Orphaned non-free image File:Gryffin DJ.jpg

Speedy deletion nomination of Gene Noble

Hello TheMagnificentist,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gene Noble for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ueutyi (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ryos (DJ)

The article Ryos (DJ) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. References are either primary, paid for content, or routine listings.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryos (DJ) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryos (DJ) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryos (DJ) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. noq (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of AFTR:HRS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AFTR:HRS is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AFTR:HRS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Karst (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Daft Punk

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Daft Punk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD 16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute of "Edit link on sections"

You gave no edit summary on your revert here. __INDEX__ has no effect in article space, and NOEDITSECTION is rather abnormal in an article. Was there some reason for the revert? Alsee (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Hey there! I reverted your edits because you enabled the "edit section" on the articles. If that is enabled, there will be more vandalism because it'll make them notice the edit buttons. It is not encouraged to allow potential IP vandalism on high importance articles like Martin Garrix. One can click on the edit source button on the top if they want to edit so "edit section" will not be necessary. Do not take it the wrong way but I think "edit section" should remain disabled to reduce vandalism. I do not see the importance of it being enabled as it doesn't bother anyone so why do you mess with it? -TheMagnificentist (Talk to me!) 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly enjoy his music, but I hope you'll forgive me (grin) for not considering it a "high importance article" compared to articles like United States, Malaysia and Barack Obama. (All of which do have section edit links). If the idea is that it would reduce vandalism then an RFC could be opened at Village pump (proposals) to have all articles default to NOEDITSECTION mode. If it got consensus then we'd submit a Phabricator request for WikimediaFoundation programmers to change the software default. I don't think it would get consensus though. Most editors find it helpful to be able to open a single section in the editor, and we explicitly do want to encourage people to notice and try the edit links. That's how we get new editors. Individual pages generally shouldn't have non-default settings unless there's some reason specific to that page. It can be confusing when someone tries to click the link and it's strangely missing. I waited for a reply from you, but now I see you're adding even more NOEDITSECTION after I explained why it was inappropriate. Please stop. You can see here that it does create confusion, and you can see here an entire discussion objecting to Visual Editor having any option at all to add these unwanted changes. Alsee (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: I still think that without the edit links on each section, it will cause lesser vandalism. As these EDM stars have lots of fans of very young age they might not act wisely and start to vandalize. So if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit. I suggest you stop worrying about this as it's all for the goodness. Those buttons will not be any disturbance to you. Agree to disagree. -TheMagnificentist 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit - that goes completely against the wiki concept. We want people to edit. The expectation is that most people will edit to improve the article. If someone does vandalize it's just a quick click of the undo button to fix it. In any case, it should be clear that having random articles one way and random articles the opposite way makes no sense. Aside from Misplaced Pages's Main Page, there are currently 124 mainspace pages with nosectionedit out of 5,219,317 articles on Enwiki. That is 99.998% of pages having section edit links. It's clear that Community Consensus is that NOEDITSECTION does not belong in normal articles. Almost all articles that do have NOEDITSECTION also have nonfunctional or erroneous INDEX/TOC/NEWSECTION keywords as well, because they were all added by new users playing with a Visual Editor menu they didn't understand. (That's what my edits were cleaning up.) Please abide by clear community consensus. I'd rather not waste people's time establishing a formal consensus to firmly resolve ths. Perhaps a random Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion will help. I'll post a request there and see what they say. Alsee (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: When vandalism takes place there needs to be active editors to revert the changes and if it slides through without getting reverted, the data will be invalid and that's not what we need in Misplaced Pages. Yes, I agree that we should encourage people to edit but having few extra edit links isn't called encouragement. They can easily get into edit mode by clicking the button on the top. If the potential Wiki contributor is not a vandaliser then they should be smart enough to get into edit mode without the edit section links. Also, is there some kind of tradition, that all articles are required to have the edit section links? I don't think so. There's no harm in having the edit links disabled and it's for the best as it potentially prevents vandalism rather than to discourage potential contributors. -TheMagnificentist 15:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After my misunderstanding on In the Name of Love (Martin Garrix and Bebe Rexha song), I was going to leave you a message, TheMagnificentist, but instead saw this. Having edited several of the pages you have done this to, it has really bugged me. In my over 10 years on Misplaced Pages, I have not seen use of the NOEDITSECTION very often at all. The pages you're talking about have had hardly the amount of vandalism that would necessitate disabling section edit links. My opinion probably won't dissuade you, so personally I wish @Alsee: would get a formal opinion because it doesn't help the majority of users to have section edit links disabled. It's like you're trying to do this as a form of edit control, and to be blunt, that's not up to you to decide. If you're worried, request page protection so IPs cannot edit it or watch the pages so you can monitor changes to it and revert quickly if it's obvious vandalism. Also, your reasons are rather contradictory, as you just said "they can easily get into edit mode without the edit section links", yet your argument for including NOEDITSECTION is it discourages ease of vandalism by IPs. Additionally, it doesn't help on long pages, as by disabling edit section links, you are requiring every user to load all the data on that page even in order to edit one minor thing. For users on slower connections—and as we don't know how many are out there, nobody should be assuming "it's 2016, everybody has an ultra-fast computer"—this slows a lot of things down. Ss112 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request: TheMagnificentist, I sympathize with your concern about vandalism and desire to save editors the time and effort of reverting it. But at the same time, adding NOEDITSECTION has negative effects on good-faith editors. It can make it harder for them to start editing and, even worse, prevent them from saving time and bandwidth with section editing and throw them off when the edit links they always expect to see are suddenly missing. When faced with balancing acts like this, Misplaced Pages usually takes the route of making things easier for good-faith editors and trusting that the vandalism is a surmountable problem. I agree with Alsee that this case should be the same, unless there is a strong community consensus for the opposite decision. If vandalism to these pages is a major problem, I agree with Ss112 that page protection is the proper way to address it. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC) |}

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I have changed mine on this to agree with all of you because as SS112 said, the edit section link doesn't require one to load all the data on that page. I also agree with Neil that good-faith editors should be prioritized over vandalisers. Besides that, I guess Alsee is also right about reverting vandalism quickly. I will not add NOEDITSECTION to any articles again unless it would make a significant positive difference. —TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being flexible, TheMagnificentist! By the way, is there a reason you've suddenly become TheMagnificentist? :) —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Martin Garrix disambiguation

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Garrix, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Usher and John Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. — TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot warning about removing AfDs

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Carnage (DJ). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The AfD was because the subject wasn't notable enough but I fixed it by adding charts to the album to prove that it is notable enough so assuming it was done, I removed the AfD. - TheMagnificentist 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not allowed to do that. The tag must remain until the debate has concluded. BethNaught (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And you have not added anything that proves notability. The deletion notice explicitly states that you should not remove it so you assumed you could ignore what it said. - Noq (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Noq: This is about another article (Carnage) which its notability is now proven. The one you nominated for deletion (Ryos) has no progress yet. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Carnage (DJ), I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion after you added sourced information showing notability. Please wait for an editor to close the AfD and remove the tags. Thank you for your edit to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation

Kygo

Thanks for watching out for his page. I love his music and was sad to see the article being vandalized. Or maybe that's a "good" thing – that means he's getting more popular… Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 07:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Moguai disambiguation

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moguai discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emmi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - TheMagnificentist 13:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Kygo - nationality

Hi. Please have a look at Singaporean nationality law (and for that matter, Norwegian nationality law) as to why Kygo wasn't born a Singaporean, despite being born in Singapore. Unless there's something not mentioned in the article (like, for example, if his parents were Singaporean citizens, which really should be mentioned if that's the case), he was born a Norwegian, not a Singaporean. Where one is born in most cases has little relevance for one's citizenship. We're talking Jus sanguinis. Manxruler (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Further, per MOS:OPENPARA,"...country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Manxruler (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Finding images

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded many images of musicians that violated copyright. Most pictures that are found online aren't licensed, even if you use them in artwork. One way to find suitable images that is by using the Creative Commons search, which searches through all images that have a CC license.

I usually find the best ones on Flickr. Just make sure the license matches one of these (watch out especially for Noncommerical and No Derivative licenses, which aren't allowed on Commons). You can also check Commons to see if there are any free images that were already uploaded.

Hope this helps! Blue Adventure (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Illenium

Part 1

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Illenium, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hey look I can do it to. Nikthestunned 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Your recent editing history at Illenium shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nikthestunned 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Change your approach to editing here. Now.

Based on the edits you recently made to Commons, you have very, very, very little leeway here. Become collaborative, right now, or I will block you indefinitely. That means you never get to use word "vandalism" again, ever. It means you never get to revert more than once. Ever. Do you understand? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked - October 2016

Thanks Infopage100

Thank you @Infopage100: for standing up for me! But I decline to request unblock because I have decided to retire from editing Misplaced Pages, which was why I "went over the edge" to get blocked immediately. I wanted to be blocked. - TheMagnificentist 08:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be blocked, you'll continue to be frustrated by your subsequent good work being removed, because that work was created by one of your sockpuppet accounts. If, as you claim in your recent comment in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMagnificentist#08 November 2016, that you "just want to edit peacefully without any interruptions", the only feasibly realistic way to do this is to do it from this account once it is unblocked. If you choose to request an unblock, I am willing to support you. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do want to get unblocked. The only reason I didn't request an unblock yet because the likeliness of getting unblocked is very low. But I will try requesting unblock in a while. - TheMagnificentist 12:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I've written a note of support below. BTW my username changed recently, I'm no longer Amatulić. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And... congratulations on being unblocked. See, the process can work! ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want your articles restored that were deleted as WP:CSD#G5, explain the situation at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I'm really thankful to you for supporting me all the way. About the Thomas Jack article, I had re-created the page using a sock before requesting unblock. It is now tagged with speedy deletion. If it is deleted, how can I request to have it undeleted? Will you please guide me? What is the proper way to have it re-established without going through G5 again? - TheMagnificentist 05:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I had deleted the article Thomas Jack (DJ) in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. Because you are no longer blocked, I have restored it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail from Infopage100

@TheMagnificentist:, I sent you a farewell/good luck email. So farewell and good luck. :) Infopage100 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Zawl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to contribute to the encyclopedia. I understand that the reason I got blocked in the first place was personal attack towards other editors which I sincerely regret. I apologize to everyone who has been hurt by my personal attacks. I easily lose my temper when I get reverted for no reason, have my contributions removed after putting so much effort. That was the only reason of me personally attacking Nikthestunned after our conflict on Illenium. However, I am truly sorry about that and I promise to never do anything to get blocked again (if I ever get unblocked). I also apologize for using sockpuppet accounts to contribute to articles. I have never made disruptive edits to any articles before, instead I have been regularly adding content with reliable sources like the ones I did on Martin Garrix, Marshmello, Mako, Ookay and many more. Using my sockpuppet account ReZawler, I have been contributing to articles such as Jump Smokers, Carl Cox and many other EDM-related articles. Sincerely, my usage of sockpuppet accounts are only to continue contributing. I am not here to disrupt, vandalize and/or damage the encyclopedia. I am finally requesting unblock after three weeks because an admin, Anachronist is supporting me to be unblocked and also for my personal desire to continue contributing to this encyclopedia. Please give me one chance. - TheMagnificentist 12:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

per consensus below. This unblock is subject to the following restrictions (agreed to by you below):

• No alternate accounts. All of your editing shall be done with this account.
• Any further disruption, edit warring, or incivility in the near future (say 6 months) will result in reinstating the indef block.
• Any further disruption, edit warring, or incivility after that will probably be treated more harshly than normal.
• A WP:1RR restriction for those 6 months. I note that User:Anachronist proposed that it be voluntary, so 2RR won't necessarily result in an indef block, but again, it is more likely that 2RR might be considered edit warring more often than normal, so it's really, really strongly encouraged.
• User:Anachronist has offered semi-unofficially to be a mentor; you should take them up on that offer.

Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anachronist: (a/k/a Amatulić) You might wish to comment here. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have a problem overlooking the socking if there was a promise to discontinue it. —DoRD (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ks0stm and Bbb23: FYI —DoRD (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the history of this user, I am opposed to an unblock at this time. They are playing nice now, but it was only a few days ago, they said "@Bbb23: don't you think indef is too harsh for one of the most active editors on EDM-related articles? I'm not who you say I am, no evidence. You're abusing admin powers." on their sock account Talk page. The user is too volatile to be trusted. They state that they lose their temper when they "get reverted for no reason". That's their opinion. Regardless, they also lose their temper in other circumstances and, worse, lie. If other administrators feel this user is a net asset to the project, I have no problem shortening the usual six-month standard offer to say three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, I only said that to get an explanation from you about the sockpuppet investigation that was about Infopage100 but somehow it ended about me. - TheMagnificentist 16:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Before an unblock, I'd like this editor to address the misogyny and homophobia in this statement: (similar statements on en.wiki have been revdel'd). You could have chosen to call people assholes, told them to go to hell, to fuck off.... the options were endless. Instead, you chose "cunt", and "pussy", and "faggot" as your insults. Why? Occam's razor would suggest you did so because you think women and gays are lesser humans, and that describing someone as a woman or gay is an insult. Is there some other believable reason for choosing those words that I'm not thinking of? I'd recommend against a comment along the lines of "I shouldn't be punished here for statements I've made off wiki", because I don't think that's going to fly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: At that moment, I was very angry. People tend to say things they don't mean when they're upset. Plus the words used are nothing but words. As a teenager, I tend to use these words as insults and they're not targeting any specific group of people. Women have equal rights as men, just because I used the word "pussy" or "cunt", doesn't mean I don't consider them humans. The word "faggot" is frequently used by rapper Eminem, I only learnt it from him and I never even understood the meaning properly, I assumed it was just some common derogatory word. I respect all human beings. I support the LGBT movement and their rights. As I said, I apologize for everything I've said on this site and I swear that I will never repeat them ever again. BTW, I only learnt those words from rap songs, I used them as meaningless insults. Not to women, not to gay people or any other groups. - TheMagnificentist 16:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I grudgingly won't oppose an unblock, but I can't bring myself to actively support, so I guess I'm agnostic about it. If you're now at least aware that the words you choose to use have meaning, and that using them the way you did demonstrates that you have some significant learning to do, then I guess at least slow progress is being made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, TheMagnificentist, if you're a teenager, you have a journey ahead. Some of us you're conversing with here are 3 or 4 times your age, and have learned that our choice of words matters a lot. Mark Twain said it best: "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." I try to take that aphorism to heart in all my writing. And civility is a requirement here. I'm happy to be available to you if you need any mentoring on Misplaced Pages, or advice in a dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add my comment. I support unblocking someone who sincerely wants to contribute, even if they occasionally slip up in civility, we're all human. The main reason for me to support unblocking here, is that it pains me to see sockpuppet accounts making positive, constructive contributions, demonstrating clearly a desire to contribute in spite of repeatedly being blocked. It pains me to see well-written, well-sourced articles deleted per WP:CSD#G5 simply because the TheMagnificentist was reluctant to request unblocking, convinced that the request would fall on deaf ears, and instead felt that there was a better chance that he could contribute from another account.

The original reason for the block is "not here to contribute to an encyclopedia." I think the actions of TheMagnificentists socks have demonstrated otherwise. We've had other productive editors here with different levels of maturity in the way they collaborate. If civility becomes a problem in the future, we can always re-block the account. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I regret my past mistakes and hopefully will not repeat them again in the future. - TheMagnificentist 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I note that Magnificentist is currently indefinitely blocked on Commons, as well, but I would could maybe support an unblock on the condition that the user understands that any further disruption, edit warring, or incivility in the near future (subjectively, but I'm thinking about 6-12 months) would be grounds for the indefinite block being reinstated. I would also like if Magnificentist agreed to a voluntary (but not necessarily official/binding) 1RR restriction (in the style of WP:BRD), as much for their benefit as anything. Tempers seem to get less flared the less reverting is being done, and if WP:BRD is followed instead of 3RR, there's less chance of a relapse into bad behavior. If reinstating the indef were to come to pass the only way I would support an unblock would be the standard offer/{{2ndchance}} after several months had elapsed. Either way, I would think that it would be best to get consensus for an unblock on AN/ANI, since some chiming in here would support and others oppose. Ks0stm 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree to the 1RR restriction and any further disruption, edit warring, or incivility in the near future will get me blocked indefinitely. - TheMagnificentist 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh God, don't go to AN/ANI. That place is guaranteed to not improve the situation in either direction. I'd rather just switch my vote to "unblock", subject to Ks0stm's restrictions (agreed to above), and with the knowledge that I'm perfectly willing to be a hardass on enforcing them, and a warning that "I have a bad temper" is not an excuse for anything, and a further warning that you don't get to be disruptive, edit war, or be uncivil after 12 months either. @Bbb23:, I understand your concern, but would it be OK to give this a shot? Rather than go to the cesspits because there's no consensus here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Agreed but only if we can rename ANI to WP:CESSP.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A rename might be controversial, but it's been a redirect at WP:CESSPIT since 2009: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, Bbb23, Ks0stm, and Anachronist: Sadly, it turns out that TheMagnificentist was socking with CoffeeMusicGym (talk · contribs) not even an hour before the above unblock request was filed. I'll leave it for you guys to decide what to do with them - I'd recommend reblocking with a return possible if they can satisfy WP:OFFER or some such. —DoRD (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

God damn it. So, Magnificentist, you didn't think that was worth mentioning in your unblock request? I'm about to log off for the weekend, whatever you guys want to do is OK with me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Any socking activity while this unblock request was being considered? I am disappointed that all the accounts weren't disclosed. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The last edit by the latest sock was 58 minutes before the unblock request was posted, and 36 minutes before they replied to your 9 November message above. —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Only because of the unusual way in which this has unfolded am I not reblocking TheMagnificentist, and this time with a CU block, but I strongly recommend that they be indeffed and no consideration given to any unblock request for at least six months. Normally, I would have run a check myself, but I didn't think the user would have that kind of chutzpah.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless I hear from another administrator objecting, I will reblock as a checkuser. Enough is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I object to reblocking at this time. There has been no evidence of socking since the unblock request. I'd like to give redemption a chance. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

But I thought we're gonna move on from this as I promised to never do it again? I did not use any of the sock since making the request. - TheMagnificentist 03:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Widr: to consider the above and suggest a way forward. I will not involve myself otherwise, considering my role at WP:SPI. Karst (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:@DoRD:@Ks0stm:@Anachronist:@Bbb23: I'm sorry for using that sock before requesting unblock but I just thought that after requesting, that wouldn't matter anymore and it'll be abandoned. I stress that it was only used before the request. Please don't reblock me for forgetting to mention about it in my request. I won't ever use sockpuppet accounts ever again, this will be my only one. - TheMagnificentist 03:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand that it is now very difficult for us to believe that promise. GAB 03:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I do, and to make up for it I'm willing to prove that I will not use any more socks if I can be given some time. - TheMagnificentist 04:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Commment @TheMagnificentist: FYI, but if you ask your question here as well as the Teahouse, you'll probably get more opinions. _Muffled 13:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortably stuck. @Floquenbeam: @DoRD: @Ks0stm: As you can see, Anachronist objects to my reblocking TheMagnificentist. I strongly believe this is carrying WP:ROPE so far it's shredded, but I'm unwilling to act unilaterally. Before I finally agreed to the unblock with conditions, I was opposed to it. I don't trust the user. I don't trust their responses. I think they have done and will continue to do whatever they please if it meets their current needs. I don't believe what they said when I blocked their sock account. They could read the SPI and know that I found that the account was unrelated to Infopage100 and was confirmed to them; yet they left that disingenuous, childish comment on the sock's Talk page. For someone who claims to have no ulterior motives, they wikilawyer whenever it suits them. Similarly, they are saying that the latest account wasn't a violation of their unblock conditions because they used it only before they were unblocked. Similarly, they claim they didn't know what the horrible slurs they used meant because they were too young. I don't believe any of it. I've seen similar scenarios play out all too often on Misplaced Pages. I'm the bad cop and there's usually a good cop (Anachronist in this instance). So we end up unblocking only to reblock sometime in the not-too-distant future. I'm not saying that people aren't redeemable, although frankly some people aren't, but simply that in this instance TheMagnificentist has not done enough to demonstrate that he's entitled to a second chance now. Let him not sock for six months. Let him last six months without misbehaving in any form. I feel like we're rewarding him for his misbehavior. That said, if no one supports me, I will bow out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  My view is that the original reason for the block stemmed from non-collaborative behavior, not sockpuppetry. Given that the sockpuppet accounts were used to make constructive contributions, and that the desire to make constructive contributions in spite of being blocked is what led to creating multiple accounts after being blocked, I view sockpuppetry as the least of my concerns, and not relevant to the original block or the unblock request. My greatest concern is the demonstrated ability to work on Misplaced Pages in a collaborative manner, particularly keeping a cool head and being careful in word choice when interacting with others. We can always re-block if TheMagnificentist fails to keep his promise. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, still stuck I see. Personally, I'm persuaded by Anachronist's thoughts, and would be in favor of wrapping that latest socking into all the previous socking (all of which happened before the unblock, even if we didn't know it), and keeping Magnificentist unblocked, except for one thing: I twisted Bbb23's arm to accept the original unblock, and I really don't like the position I put him in with this new info. If Bbb23 had not accepted the original unblock, I would have said AN/ANI is the way to go. So if there's disagreement between admins here (I gather DoRD also would favor a re-block), maybe AN/ANI is the best way to go after all? I'd hate to do that, but there's not any other way to move forward if admins disagree (unless we want to do rock paper scissors), and I'm no longer willing to try to twist Bbb23's arm any further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So that's why my arm was hurting. And here I thought it was from blocking so many socks. Why do you think DoRD favors reblocking, Floquenbeam? Did he something elsewhere?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's up there ↑: "I'll leave it for you guys to decide what to do with them - I'd recommend reblocking with a return possible if they can satisfy WP:OFFER or some such. —DoRD (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)" I guess "I gather" was too weak. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll defer to Anachronist, I guess. If I see any more socking, though, all bets are off. —DoRD (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind a wider discussion, but isn't there a more useful admin noticeboard than WP:CESSPIT? I don't even have that on my watchlist, I find it so unpleasant. In any case, my view remains that the sockpuppetry isn't relevant to the recent block and subsequent unblock, and that we should give redemption a chance. I'm watching closely, and I'll block him myself if I see any recidivism. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No need. Based on DoRD's comments, I will let Anachornist's optimism prevail. (I have ANI on my watchlist, but I don't actually look at it unless I'm bored and feeling mildly masochistic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse thing

Said the Sky userfied

Hello, TheMagnificentist! I have restored the article Said the Sky to your userspace. You can find it at User:TheMagnificentist/Said the Sky. Since it is in your private userspace and not the main encyclopedia, you can work on expanding and improving it without any danger of it being deleted. Be sure to take careful note of the criticisms and suggestions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Said the Sky and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 15. When you think you have it ready, let me know. I will solicit opinions from some people who know more about music article criteria than I do. If they think it is sufficiently different/improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article's talk page saying so. Without that, it would probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. Good luck with it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm done with the article. It's ready. - TheMagnificentist 16:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I will add that interviews in Your EDM, links to iTunes and Soundcloud don't do anything for the purpose of establishing notability. The article wouldn't pass WP:AFD with those references. See Misplaced Pages:Golden rule for a brief overview of what an article must have before being accepted into main space.

Also, try to consolidate the references. That is, if you use a citation multiple times, give it a name the first time, like <ref name="xyz">{{cite web| etc.}}</ref>, and subsequent times, just use <ref name="xyz" /> for the same citation. That way it shows up only once in the reflist.

If you have any questions please let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anachronist. I'm almost done with the article. Will you please check it to see if the references are okay. I removed the most of the iTunes and Soundcloud links but added significant coverage sources from electronic music articles. I guess it passes the golden rule (significant coverage, reliable and independent sources) - TheMagnificentist 09:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, M. I'm going to ask somebody to take a look at it who is my go-to guy for music articles. A couple of comments right off the bat: You can't call him a "huge up-and-comer" without a source. Also, an awful lot of the article consists of him talking about himself; I'm not sure how much that contributes to notability. But we'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My more-knowledgeable colleague said it has a legitimate claim and could be moved to the encyclopedia, but if it was nominated for AfD it might not pass. Let me know before you move it over, so I can certify that it is significantly different from the previously deleted article and not eligible for WP:G4 deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That concerned me too... calling someone an "up and comer" is almost an immediate disqualification for inclusion. We don't have articles about up-and-coming artists. They must have already arrived. And the proof that they've arrived are either significant coverage (not interviews) in reliable independent sources, or any of the criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO.

I see a lot of sources in the article now... descriptions in directory listings, coverage by a record label publicist, interviews, concert program sheet, blog posts, college newspaper... stuff like this is either not independent, not reliable, or not considered "coverage". The sheer quantity of sources like this gives the appearance of compensating for lack of real significant coverage by having a large number of poor sources. Although some in there that might qualify. I'd say after a bit more cleanup (particularly the lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD) we can move it to main space and then see what happens; my guess is that it'll be a keeper. I will say the article is way better than it used to be. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, I removed the "up-and-coming" part and reworded the dialogues. I guess it's good enough now. - TheMagnificentist 04:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have responded to Anachronist's comment about the lead. Maybe they could give you some more guidance on that. Anyhow, I have posted a note on the talk page saying that it is not eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4. It could still get deleted but it would have to go through another AfD discussion. Good luck with it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have acknowledged Anachronist's comment about the lead and have removed the "up-and-coming" part. I'm going to move it to main space now so that more editors can help to contribute and clean up, thanks MelanieN.

ArbCom Elections 2016

Hello, TheMagnificentist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

EDM genres

I know that Hard dance is an 'EDM' genre as to how it is connected to 'Electronic dance music' as a link with house as a subgenre, but the differance with Hard dance and Hardstyle is that Hardstyle incorperates hard-sounding kick drums, unlike Hard dance which takes on a strong bass rhythm. Hard dance takes off some field of features from UK hard house, Hard trance, Eurodance and Hardcore techno as to it was around the same time as these genres in the decade from them having some form of effect into becoming what it is and it too reaching some form of popularity at the time as those genres did at raves and clubs. To add, Hard dance is not usually distorted or uses much of a distortion in comparison to Hardstyle. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You said "Hard dance is not played commercially, it's partly played at raves and festivals. It redirects to hardstyle, Hard dance is a subgenre or field of hard house." and removed "Hard dance" from the EDM article which clearly contradicts what you said: "I know that Hard dance is an 'EDM' genre...". Hardstyle has nothing to do with this because we're discussing about your removal of "Hard dance" from the EDM article. - TheMagnificentist 02:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_dance_music&diff=prev&oldid=750696061

Deep house and related genres

Dude, stop adding Kygo and others to deep house, they don't belong there, its tropical house and should be treated as such. Last few years spawned future house and tropical house, they have their distinctive sound, so lets not lump everything together. Now I have an account and refrain from anonymous edits. VEC7OR (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Deep house should be there because these artists have produced it multiple times. Tropical house is a subgenre of deep house and that's another reason to why it shouldn't be removed. Robin Schulz doesn't even produce tropical house music. Someone else should see if the removal (of deep house from these articles by VEC7OR) is justified. Ss112, ‎Shiftchange, Hakken - TheMagnificentist 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kygo&diff=prev&oldid=751961946
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Klingande&diff=prev&oldid=751961650
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robin_Schulz&diff=prev&oldid=751961605
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lost_Frequencies&diff=prev&oldid=751961534
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deep_house&diff=prev&oldid=751960957

Discogs doesn't list them as producers of deep house and they aren't, this has been discussed to death. Putting them there just dilutes the genre and makes stuff impossible to find - keep them with tropical house or house, it would be better that way for everyone. So what now ? Edit wars are dumb, lets be smart about this, okay ? I've listened and curated this genre for years and anything you added just doesn't sound like it at all.

There are automatically generated genre listings

Take a look here

http://everynoise.com/engenremap-tropicalhouse.html

http://everynoise.com/engenremap-deephouse.html

http://everynoise.com/engenremap-deepdeephouse.html

Click around and see for yourself, see the whole map and notice the distance between said genres.

http://everynoise.com/engenremap.html

Do I need to provide additional info to prove this point ? Real problem is as stated before - right now deep house is hot shit, it sells, and everyone and anyone wants a piece of the pie, regardless of what they produce - hence the confusion.

VEC7OR (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

VEC7OR, you don't seem to understand that these two genres have different sounds which makes it hard for them to be categorized as one. Tropical house music has more tropical vibes to it and deep house has straight down thick and powerful type of house music. Tropical house is the subgenre of deep but that doesn't mean they have the same sounds. I've never heard a tropical house song produced by any of those artists you mentioned other than Klingande and Kygo. Both genres should be there for better clarification.

I have requested a third opinion to participate in our discussion. - TheMagnificentist 04:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@VEC7OR and TheMagnificentist: TheMagnificentist has request a 3rd opinion. I am responding to that request. I have moved this entire conversation to the article's talk page. Please click here to see my comments. Regards.Dig Deeper (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Links and refs

Just so you know, it's usually preferred that you use external links instead of reference tags. For example, typing produces Misplaced Pages and produces . It's usually a lot less bulky in talk page discussions than including an entire reference list. We usually only include it if, for example, we're typing out a paragraph we want to put in an article, Misplaced Pages policy, etc., and we need to discuss it first. Also, instead of using {{reflist}} on talk pages, we prefer to use {{reftalk}}, which is like reflist, except it's a bit neater, which is greatly appreciated in talk page discussions, especially in long ones. — Gestrid (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Said the Sky reviewed

Thanks for creating Said the Sky, TheMagnificentist!

Misplaced Pages editor Mz7 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work replacing the iTunes and SoundCloud sources. My one concern is that I'm not too familiar with the EDM-specialized sources like Your EDM, so I don't know how much they contribute to notability. Ensure these aren't self-published blogs.

To reply, leave a comment on Mz7's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Rejected submissions

Manorial

• Manorial (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Barony of Stobo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Magnificentist

Thanks for your prompt response on my submission. I am deeply puzzled by your response.

Firstly, a Scottish barony is a minor title of nobility ranking in precedence above a clan chief and as such, inherently noteworthy; secondly, the barony of Stobo is referenced at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Barons_in_Scotland under the list of pre-1707 baronies; thirdly, there are numerous such Scottish barony pages on Misplaced Pages under Barony and linked to it, full listings for Cartsburn, Cowie, Dirleton, Hailes, Ladyland, Newton, Peacockbank, Plenderleith, not to mention the Royal barony of Renfrew, one of the titles of HRH Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay.

With respect, I do wonder: how great is your grasp of the intricacies of Scottish nobility? Were you actually aware of any of the above Wikis when you dismissed Stobo as lacking in notability? Is Stobo any less notable than any of these (bar Renfrew perhaps?).

You suggest the entry reads "like an essay". In fact, the piece is academically sound. It is carefully researched citing primary sources from the Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, from the National Archives of Scotland and the Scottish Records Service as well as impeccable secondary sources (Millar, Buchan). If you wish, I can spell these sources out in greater detail for you. I accept that I have used conventional archival references which may be confusing to the general or untutored reader.

I would ask you to detail for me how I might amend the piece to meet your concerns but would ask you to reconsider your dismissal of the piece which I feel is unjustified.Manorial (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Manorial: There isn't any such thing as "inherent" notability for nobility. We don't have an active policy on it. There is a failed proposal WP:NR, but by the standards described there, a barony would not be inherently notable. To qualify for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, this barony would need evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, just like any other topic on Misplaced Pages, per Misplaced Pages:Notability. The number of Misplaced Pages pages that may link to it is irrelevant; we need independent published sources that describe the barony in detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In particular, an article on a person should meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). — Gestrid (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Manorial. I declined your submission because there aren't much reliable sources. Also, it doesn't comply with the Misplaced Pages formatting of articles, sections should be added or else it wouldn't seem like an encyclopedic article. As Anachronist said, it would need evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources per Misplaced Pages:Notability. - TheMagnificentist 10:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

AmandaEwiki

• AmandaEwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Training Management Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello TheMagnificentist,

Can you please indicate which sources are not reliable enough in this article (each source is only listed once)?

I have copied them below, you can add Yes/No next to each one.

Brandon Hall Group (2015). "State of Learning and Development". www.brandonhall.com. p. 22. Retrieved 2016-11-29. Kineo (2015). "Learning Insights 2015 Report"Free registration required. www.kineo.com. p. 21. HARWARD, DOUG (2014-06-06). "How big is the Training Market?". Retrieved 2016-11-05 – via www.trainingindustry.com/. CIPD (2015). "Annual Survey Report Learning and Development" (PDF). www.cipd.co.uk. p. 17. Retrieved 2016-11-15. Clomedia. "Finding the Right Learning Mix". www.clomedia.com. Retrieved 2016-11-18. Sell, George. "On-site versus Off-site Training". Retrieved 2016-11-18 – via www.trainingmag.com. Jump up ^ Udemy (2015). "State of Corporate Training" (PDF). www.business.udemy.com/. p. 3. Retrieved 2016-11-29.

Thank you!

Best regards, AmandaEwiki--AmandaEwiki (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello AmandaEwiki. The sources you mentioned may be primary and/or unreliable. The first source cited (Brandon Hall Group) doesn't exactly address the topic "Training Management Software". The second one is a social media source which is not acceptable because social media sources are not reliable per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Similarly, many of the other sources have these issues. Nevertheless, significant coverage in independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability. - TheMagnificentist 11:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

MarketingProfessor

• MarketingProfessor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jared M Hansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am searching for clarification on what I need to do to improve the referencing (if it is source quantity or quality or topic notability).

Greetings. Could you please provide some more detailed guidance on the rejected draft. This is my first time trying to create a submission so I'm trying to figure out what the provided direction means.

In particular, was it the case that: (a) more references (quantity) are needed for each of the listed idea contributions? (b) references are needed from different sources (quality) than the listed journal articles etc. in the draft? or (c) the listed contribution ideas themselves are not viewed as notable given their descriptions?

I hope to be able to add pages in the next few weeks for several other notable scholars in marketing and the new big ideas that they're accredited in the literature, but I want to get this one finished correctly so I don't make repetitive mistakes on the other pages when creating them. Any additional guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. MarketingProfessor (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

MarketingProfessor (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources are primary and/or self-published. You need reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Please read WP:Verifiability for more info. - TheMagnificentist 08:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Margo Ingham

• Hephzibah Yohannan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Margo Ingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, many thanks for your comments on my article on Margo Ingham. I will work on the piece. I thought I had written it in a reasonably 'encyclopaedic' manner, using newspaper articles and other websites etc as references, so I didn't think it was original research. Please could you give me an example of the type of reference that would be appropriate? I have had another article accepted, previously, but am only an occasional Misplaced Pages editor. I have found it is very different from my usual writing, which is original biographical research. Hephzi (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hephzi (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hephzi. I declined the draft because it does not follow WP:MOS. Sections should be added and it should be cleaned up. Also, the reliability of several of the sources is disputable and some of the others are not at all reliable such as the Wordpress blog. - TheMagnificentist 13:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

TheMagnificentist (]) 13:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TheMagnificentist. Many thanks for your reply. As an occasional user, I didn't follow the guidelines properly, I see. I think in my other article I followed them by copying the style of another article. It's quite a complex and specialist business writing for Misplaced Pages. Very interesting challenge! May I ask, are the newspaper references reliable? Perhaps you could point out which of my references are reliable (or perhaps one, as an example). I understand that the Wordpress blog is not fully reliable. Thank again. Hephzi (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

House music / Kym

Hello, I'm Horizonlove. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to House music have been undone. Simply reverting information because you felt it was "promotional" is not a valid reason to remove it. I have also taken the initiative by adding reliable sources to support information added to the article. Horizonlove (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you have removed more information and facts (unrelated to my edits) from the article. Before removing people's edits and hardwork, I ask that you would discuss further edits or revisions on the talk page. Thank you! Horizonlove (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Horizonlove, I reverted it because it was written in a promotional way and also it's very misleading. The Allmusic source you provided does not say that she relocated to London to make the genre famous. The Voice Online source may not even be reliable. Another thing is that the article is about the genre not an individual which is why adding pictures of an individual to the article isn't acceptable per Misplaced Pages policies. - TheMagnificentist 08:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It still does not meet the standards of what you claim as promotional. The information and added picture are no different from the albums/records mentioned in the article or the "Swedish House Mafia and Benny Benassi.jpg", "Anthony Mooney - Lil Med-1.jpg", "Blaq Dot in 2015.jpg" picture files. Horizonlove (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why those pictures are there but they shouldn't be there per policies unless there are some significance to their placements. My point is not to add misleading content. A pioneer of a genre is not something to be taken lightly as there should be significant coverage to back the claim or else it will be disregarded as hoax or promotion. - TheMagnificentist 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It is also similar to page about Funk. There are pictures of Chaka Khan, James Brown, and more on that page. Are you saying that the pictures of that page also violates Misplaced Pages policies? Horizonlove (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a situation where one error creates bigger errors, for e.g. your addition of misleading content has forced the addition of image which is considered irrelevant because the main topic is also irrelevant to the article. Nevertheless, unrelated images shouldn't be added in the first place, but since they're already added it would be controversial to remove them all of a sudden. - TheMagnificentist 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Basshunter

Hello. Thanks for your edits. Are you sure of edits in carrer section? I based on featured articles where was albums names mainly. Unfortunately some subsections are nonsense now like singles merged "Now You're Gone" with "Please Don't Go" and singles of Calling Time with The Early Bedroom Sessions album. I could fix it if its correct way. Eurohunter (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Eurohunter. The "alleged sexual assault" section should be under Controversy section since it's the appropriate word. The albums and singles sections were merged to reduce WP:EXCESS (too much info in irrelevant places). Since this is a BLP, any unsourced content must be immediately removed. - TheMagnificentist 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy" name isn't in encyclopedic style. It is same way like "trivia" section. Every sentence in this artcle has been sourced so why you mentioned it (just see one unsoureced sentence which I will fix soon)? Eurohunter (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually you're right! per WP:CSECTION. Apologies, I will revert myself. - TheMagnificentist 09:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Btw. do you deleted some references? It is less references now. Do you think I can still improve the article? Eurohunter (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete any references. I only removed social media from the external links. - TheMagnificentist 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Category additions

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I noticed you added w:Category:Progressive house producers to We Are Loud and Mike Hawkins (musician), however, I didn't see a source to support this genre in either article. Please let me know if I missed something. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Magnolia677. I added the categories based on the genre listed in the infoboxes of the articles. As per WP:INFOBOXREF, sources are not needed. - TheMagnificentist 13:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The connection of either of these two articles to the "production of progressive house" is not obvious, so a reference in either the infobox or in the article will be needed. Also, Mike Hawkins career as a "producer" is barely mentioned in his article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Both articles say they are producers and their genres are progressive house. That makes them progressive house producers. - TheMagnificentist 14:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My apology for not being clearer. You are correct in referring to WP:INFOBOXREF, which states that "references are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious". I don't believe the connection of either of those two articles to "progressive house" is obvious. As well, nowhere in the article is progressive house mentioned. Your category addition further adds unsourced material to the article. Because I have "challenged" your edit (see WP:CHALLENGE), the best course would be to find a source to support that both of the articles are connected to the production of progressive house music. When making category additions, it's always best be sure the edit is supported by a reliable source somewhere in the article. I hope this helps. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the sources. - TheMagnificentist 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a reliable source to Mike Hawkins (musician) and We Are Loud. I noticed that this particular category, progressive house producers, was created by you about four hours ago, and since then you have added this category to 186 articles. In some instances, such as at Flux Pavilion and Steve Aoki, "progressive house" isn't even mentioned in the article. I'm sure you have read WP:CAT which states: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." You also created Category:Future house producers and appear to be randomly adding it to articles that nowhere mention "future house", as you did at Cash Cash. Do you intend to add a reliable source to the 208 articles you added these two categories to? If not, I would strongly suggest you revert your edits until you are able to add a reliable source. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I will be adding reliable sources to those articles. - TheMagnificentist 15:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You also created Category:Deep house producers, and appear to be randomly adding it to articles, as you did at Lee Burridge. As well, Category:Tropical house producers, created today by you, is also being randomly added to articles, as you did at Clean Bandit. You do realize this is potentially over 300 unsourced edits? Furthermore, another editor has already cautioned you about your category additions here. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I said I will add sources to those edits. Please stop harassing me as I feel uncomfortable with your belligerence. Your accusation of me randomly adding to articles is blunt as I did not add them randomly. I referred to several other Misplaced Pages articles like List of house music artists and Deep house. BTW, most of them do not need sources as those articles have the genres and occupation (as producers) listed so it's considered obvious enough to not require a source. Also, that editor did not caution me about my recent edits. They only discussed the removal of deep house from several articles which is totally unrelated to what we're discussing now. - TheMagnificentist 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that response certainly has me scratching my head, because as I was going through your edit history I noticed you have taken a shine to rejecting the draft articles of other editors, as you did here, here, here, here, and here, because the creators of those articles had failed to add enough reliable sources; and just today you also left a warning here on the talk page of another editor because they had added unsourced content to an article; but when another edit informs you that you will need to deal with the potentially 300+ unsourced edits you have make in the past day, that makes you feel harassed and uncomfortable. Well it certainly wasn't my intention to disrupt your safe space, and I hope you'll accept my apology, but I can see from your last four edits that fixing this problem is not your priority. Would you feel more comfortable if we got an administrator involved to help us deal with this? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding categories to articles do not require a source if it's obvious enough. The articles have content (for e.g. genre - deep house and occupation - producers) obviously related to the categories (Deep house producers). But I am willing to look for and add references to those edits if someone else can add in their opinion (along with relevant Misplaced Pages policies) on whether or not the edits should have sources. - TheMagnificentist 21:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anachronist. Do you have anything to say about Magnolia677's mass removal of my category addition to articles? Just need your opinion on who's right. I've added categories to articles, "Tropical house producers" to articles of tropical house producers (Source is that the genre listed in the articles and their occupations as producers). - TheMagnificentist 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Unsourced content was removed, per WP:VERIFY and WP:CAT. An example of an article where TheMagnificentist inappropriately added a category is Cheat Codes (DJs). On July 16, 2016, an IP editor made this edit and added the genre tropical house to the article. No source was added to support the addition, and there was no other mention of "tropical house" in the article. Then yesterday, TheMagnificentist created w:Category:Tropical house producers, tracked down every mention of "tropical house" on Misplaced Pages, and added the category to those articles. Worse, there is no mention on the Cheat Codes article that they are "producers". In some instances, such as Galantis, tropical house was not even mentioned in the article, yet TheMagnificentist still added the category. TheMagnificentist also added w:Category:Deep house producers, w:Category:Future house producers, and w:Category:Progressive house producers to hundreds of articles that don't even mention those genres. This sort of editing violates both WP:VERIFY and WP:CAT, and TheMagnificentist did it to hundreds of articles on the same day he/she admonished other editors for adding unsourced content. Furthermore, TheMagnificentist was cautioned here about adding unsourced content. Then, when asked to either remove or find sources for their hundreds of unsourced edits, TheMagnificentist began editing unrelated articles, and then complained of harassment and intimidation. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I added "Cheat Codes" to the category, based on the list on the Tropical House page. I was not aware that the unsourced addition of genre was added by an IP user. Also, I would like you to know that "producers" (in music) refers to "record producers". A record producer is a person who produces music, it can be a DJ, a musician, a music director and so on. You do not need a source to know that, it's basic knowledge. "Cheat Codes" is a DJ trio and by just referring to their discography section, you can see that they produce music. Therefore, they are producers. That's why I added them to the category. Me being a reviewer of draft submissions has nothing to do with my addition of categories to articles so I would like to know why is it really necessary for you to mention it multiple times? Your claim of unsourced content should solely be on the person who added the unsourced genres. I shouldn't be blamed for adding categories of them because I didn't add the genres. If you're worried about the unsourced genres so much, you can help to find sources. I hope you have accomplished with reverting my edits so that I don't have to see vexatious notifications. If you have, I apologize for causing inconvenience to you and hopefully we do not get into anymore disputes in the future. - TheMagnificentist 13:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You have referred to my comments to you as belligerent and vexatious, yet you are apologizing for causing me inconvenience. You are one confused individual, and you seem to be creating a lot of work for other editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I referred to the notifications as vexatious and your aggressive behaviour towards me as belligerent. - TheMagnificentist 04:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Observation from the peanut gallery

Since I was asked, and I don't wish to involve myself in a dispute here, I will say this: See WP:BURDEN. On Misplaced Pages, the burden is on the person who adds or restores content to support that content with sources. Admittedly, the context of that policy is more toward prose content than the addition of categories to an article, but the concept still applies. No one would agree that, say, Category:Skyscrapers in the Netherlands is appropriate for Cheat Codes (DJs). Why? Because there are no sources that connect the two topics. If I were to add that category tag to the article, the burden would be upon me to prove that the category is applicable. I would have to find a reliable source demonstrating a connection.

We don't need sources, however, for self-evident or obvious facts. See WP:BLUE for more information. If a DJ obviously belongs to some category or other, then add the category and explain it in the edit summary or on the talk page. If that category is contentious, then the right approach is what was done above, explaining the reasoning and determining if the reasoning was valid.

I have no opinion or expertise on house music topics, so I cannot comment specifically on who's correct in the dispute here. That said, the last comment from Magnolia677 compels me to recommend a review Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and WP:CIVIL. TheMagnificentist is trying to improve articles, and if an error was made due to confusion about the validity of existing genre categories, then politely correct it without name-calling. And to TheMagnificentist, please also review WP:AGF, accusations of belligerence are unwarranted. You are just two editors who want to improve the project, and you have a disagreement. That's all.

Finally, bear in mind WP:BRD. While WP:BRD is not a requirement, any editor who has been here for a long time tries to follow that as a best practice. Make a bold edit, then if you are reverted, discuss it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

But would you say that adding "Tropical house producers" category to articles of musicians/DJs who produce tropical house music is reasonable? - TheMagnificentist 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Lemongirl942

Disclosure: Magnolia677 asked me to look at this discussion and comment. The way I see it is that categories generally follow from the text of the article. So if the text of the article mentions that X singer won a grammy in 2016 (and there is a citation for that), the category "2016 Grammy award winners" can be added to the article. In essence, the categories are an extension of the text and it must be supported by citations in the article. My personal rule for adding categories is to first locate the information in the article, ensure it is sourced and then add the category. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@TheMagnificentist: I suggest the best way to go about is to make sure that the information is first reliably sourced in the article. If there is no citation, try looking for one and add it. WP:V is one of our key policies and this is what makes Misplaced Pages reliable. When you add the citation, it is a small step towards improving the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So I'm partially right for adding categories that "generally follow from the text of the article" but need to make sure the information are cited? - TheMagnificentist 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't disappoint me

Hi, you may recall I supported your unblock request a while back. I must remind you that you are editing under a 1RR restriction for six months, outlined clearly here, and you have violated that with 3 reverts in 24 hours in the article house music. You were given fair warning.

It is commendable that you are discussing the dispute, but if another editor reverts you, you really have to let it go, and discuss the problem after one revert.

So what will it be? An indef block that cannot be appealed? I can promise you it will happen if you blow 1RR again in the next 5 months. You're a good contributor and I don't want to see that happen.

I'm going to let this one slide, but only this time. Please adhere to your restrictions. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright Anachronist, I'll take it easy next time on the reverts. I do recall and I'm still grateful for your support!

Magnolia677's question about sockpuppet case

I must be missing something, so hopefully you can help me out. I see that you are a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Infopage100 (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Infopage100/Archive). If so, how can you both be editing at User talk:Infopage100 within minutes of each other? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677, "I see that you are a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Infopage100" - I'm not, as confirmed here. Can't editors have a conversation? Is it against any policies? - TheMagnificentist 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your actions regarding Draft:Fritz Haffer

Please explain why you moved article Fritz Haffer to Draft:Fritz Haffer. I have promoted via WP:AfC because the subject is inherently notable as a participant in the olympics, see WP:NOLYMPICS. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:78.26, The article fails WP:Verifiability as in, no significant coverage of reliable sources were cited. - TheMagnificentist 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sports Reference is generally considered a reliable source, and in this case GNG does not need to be met, (subject presumed notable per above). If you have good reason to doubt the accuracy of the source or the article, please let me know the reason you think it is in error. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:78.26, significant coverage would mean lots of reliable references not just one.

I think you misunderstand[REDACTED] policy in this matter. It's going to take a lot of time to undo the damage you've done. Please do not review articles at AfC for awhile, and do not move articles from article space into draft space. If you have concerns, you may nominate articles for deletion via the WP:AfD process. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The same action was taken with Olympian Draft:Willi Zacharias. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

... and many others. Unfortunately, I have to go now, and can't deal with all of them. Will try to look later if another editor doesn't take care of it, but may not be until Sunday. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved them all back to article space. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, these are all notable. Bradv 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Only Draft:Karl Haffer and Draft:Edward Hagen needs to be done. Sander.v.Ginkel 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bradv 19:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bradv Thanks a lot. Also for me it's not ideal creating via the draft space. Hopefully I'm not causing to much pain for you and the others at AfC. If it takes too much time, you can also list a few and tell me you approve them, so I can move them myself to the main space(?). Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can approve them with the tool and they get moved normally. I just have to tell it that it is not a biography, and it doesn't try to duplicate all the defaultsort and categories. The only problem I can see is that WikiProject Biography doesn't get added to the talk page. Take a look at Willy Renz. Bradv 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677's questions about my draft declination

Byerly Hall

I noticed that as a new-page-reviewer, you declined Draft:Byerly Hall, informing the author, User talk:Maud Wood Park, that in your opinion there weren't enough reliable sources in the draft to support an article. Of course, while not every building at Harvard University is worthy of a Misplaced Pages article, there certainly seems to be significant resources to support a stub article for Byerly College. The author at the very least could have been told to add their research to Radcliffe College. Could you please explain why you declined this draft article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I declined that draft because it didn't have many reliable sources which means it would fail the verifiability criteria. - TheMagnificentist 18:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you do any research about this place before declining it? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I found that it lacks significant coverage. Also, it does not mention why it's significant enough to be included in the encyclopedia. - TheMagnificentist 18:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677, you're wikihounding and harassing me. - TheMagnificentist 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding its lack of significance, the draft article had sources to support that the building:

• Was designed by Coolidge & Carlson (these are the same architects that designed Boston Latin Academy, Oak Hill & The Martha Berry Museum, Lawson Tower, Colonial Beacon Gas Station, and Walker Home for Missionary Children).
• Is named for William Elwood Byerly.
• Was the site of the Harvard College admissions office.
• Was renovated by Goody Clancy (this is the same firm that designed the United States Department of State, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, South Bay Tower, and Old Naval Observatory).

In your research you must have noticed that it was the site of a sit-in by protesters, see . As well, as a geographic feature in the United States with a GNIS entry, don't you feel this, along with the sources cited in the draft, would make it notable, per WP:NGEO? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Geographical features must be notable on their own merits." Notability isn't inherited so the architects don't contribute to the significance. Same goes for Goody Clancy. Therefore, I still do not consider it notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. - TheMagnificentist 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is not the best, but it wouldn't have been deleted in an AfD. Many people are complaining how hard it is for a new user to get something published via an AfC. Sander.v.Ginkel 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Leonora LaPeter Anton

I certainly don't want to appear to be "wikihounding", but I noticed that today you declined Draft:Leonora LaPeter Anton because it lacked reliable sources, and because there wasn't clear evidence of why the subject is notable.

The article states that Anton is the recipient of the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting, and this source was included in the draft. You can confirm this here.

Can you please explain how winning a Pulitzer Prize does not make a person notable? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please respond to this? I'd rather not address this issue without your input first. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I declined that draft for multiple issues;

• It does not follow the manual of style As per WP:MOSBIO, it reads like an essay without any sections and so on.
• As per WP:V, only one source is used (Tampabay) and even that is not added to the references section properly.
• The sources cited are primary. The Pulitzer source you mentioned is not cited in the draft.
• And obviously, lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. - TheMagnificentist 13:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You are not correct. An link to an article in The Island Packet was included in the draft. Furthermore, the only feedback you provided the author of the draft was that the draft lacked reliable sources, and lacked clear evidence of why the subject is notable. I have made edits to the draft (using the same sources in the draft you rejected), and have re-submitted it for review. You failed to recognize that a biography about a Pulitzer Prize recipient was notable. I completely agree with the comment made above by User:78.26. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My task as reviewer is to identify the sources provided in the references section and to decide whether they're relevant or not. I am not obliged to identify the improperly sourced references else where. I am also not obliged to respond to your questions but I will do so anyways. I have been relieved from my duties as a reviewer so I will not be doing any reviews for some time. - TheMagnificentist 15:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've approved the draft. To be fair, it looked terrible before Magnolia677 edited it. I probably would have declined it as well as it did not meet the minimum standards for inline citations. However, the subject is clearly notable, and fixing it up was the right call. Bradv 16:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors in December 2016

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wiwek page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - TheMagnificentist 04:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

TheMagnificentist, I do not want my comments on your talk page altered by adding a heading, as it alters both the meaning and sequence. Please remove the heading, per WP:TPO. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply - per WP:TPO:

• "should not edit or delete the comments of other editors..." - I did not edit or delete any of your comments.
• "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" - The meanings of your comments are still the same.
• "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" - I have stopped because you objected.
• WP:OWNTALK, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages".
• "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate" - The headings I added were more appropriate because they clearly address the topic of discussion, which is your questions about the drafts. The previous headings were not very descriptive.
• "It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading" - That's exactly what I did.

- TheMagnificentist 14:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Creation, and other topics, and friendly advice

TheMagnificentist, I apologize I have not been able to write to you sooner. I hate to lose a reviewer at AfC, we need all the help we can get. Would you find it reasonable to take the following actions?

1. Be reluctant to undo the work of highly experienced editors. It's perhaps better to ask the editor first.
2. Read Misplaced Pages:SKYISBLUE
3. Try to understand the difference between WP:N and WP:V, both of which are important but are used differently. Also take some time to look at the specific notability guidelines for certain professions, and topic areas such as WP:NMUSIC.

I think you've done well to try to tell the difference between a reliable source, and an unreliable source. There are some topics where notability applies, but perhaps WP:GNG doesn't. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of GNG, when it doesn't apply is the exception, not the norm. There are also topics at AfC that are undoubtedly notable, but which I'd never promote because they are blatant advertising ("FOO Inc. makes the best foo anywhere, so buy it direct from us!"). Please be careful when declining for MOS issues. A draft does not need to meet WP:GA guidlines to be promoted, or even "B" or "C" level. If an article is unreadable because of formatting issues, that is certainly a reason to decline. The main reason I asked you to stop reviewing AfC articles was because when you were asked about your actions and shown that they might not be benefiting the encyclopedia, you dug in your heels and appeared to be unwilling to consider a different course of action. I'm afraid it is implied that you are supposed to do the draft's author's work for them, that is not true. WP:BEFORE applies to nominating articles/drafts for deletion, not to AfC reviewers. I hope that is helpful. Thank you for your volunteer efforts to improve the encyclopedia. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well. - TheMagnificentist 08:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Progressive house category

Just a quick note. In general it is fairly easy to establish the genre in the case of these EDM artist. If allmusic.com has a biography on them, it would be mentioned there. I suggest you keep that as a guideline perhaps (as I did on Nicky Romero) to avoid reverts over categories that are added without a reference. Karst (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please Keep Matheus Soares (music producer)

Please keep the page of the Brazilian musical artist Matheus Soares, who is an important DJ of electronic music, brazillian bass of brazil, besides having great partners and collabs of music like, alok number 1 of brazil and 25th of the world according With DJ Mag, felguk and vintage culture, consider that the page is now well written and with references and more information, also note that it is a page about a living person and deserves space in American[REDACTED] and was created by someone with no information before, This is a new version with new information. RobertCaldwell (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RobertCaldwell. The page you created Matheus Soares (music producer) was tagged with speedy deletion (CSD G4) because it was a recreated page from a deletion discussion. It was recreated by a sockpuppet account yesterday and Salvidrim! had deleted it. - TheMagnificentist 07:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, why was it moved to an already deleted wiki? The page does not have the same subject and category of article Matheus Soares (music producer) so it has to stay, do you agree? Do you know a solution? RobertCaldwell (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:OnlyLoveCoverShaggy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OnlyLoveCoverShaggy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - TheMagnificentist 13:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mord Fustang has a new comment

Robert McClenon, you really didn't have to move my subpage to a draft page. I didn't even submit it for "Articles for Creation". - TheMagnificentist 07:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion inquiry

I'm wondering if you'd kindly be interested in assessing Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Heap_(company) (since you participated in a Luxe/Verbling deletion discussion). It seems users DGG and SwisterTwister routinely vote for deletion together without offering analysis, so I wanted to get a third-party involved. I'm not fishing for a keep, but I am looking for a legitimate discussion if possible. Thanks for any consideration. GDWin (talk) GDWin —Preceding undated comment added 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Kym Mazelle

Please do not start your edit warring again. Misplaced Pages doesn't require a source behind every sentence of every article. Horizonlove (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Horizonlove, I "challenged" your unsourced restoration of content, so the burden to demonstrate verifiability is with you per WP:PROVEIT. - TheMagnificentist 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? Because what it really feels like you're doing is trying to be disruptive and get back at me since you failed to report me for editing House music. A result that was ruled "no action" and indef block warning towards you for 1RR restriction argument. Anyway, I'm here to play an-eye-for-an-eye with you. You could have googled it if you required proof because that data entry has been there for several months with no one challenging it. So I'm asking you to stop being childish. Horizonlove (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Horizonlove: If you are referring to Kym Mazelle, any sentence using unsubstantiated weasel words and peacock terms such as "renowned as an innovator", "widely known", "eclectic", "widely regarded", and "pioneer" absolutely requires a source. Removing such a sentence without a source is the correct action.

We cannot say stuff like that in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice. In fact, even slapping a source on such a sentence is not sufficient. We are not here to promote a subject. Misplaced Pages must not tell readers what to think; doing so violates WP:NPOV. It would be better to state something like "the notable critic John Doe has referred to Kym Mazelle as an innovator...." or providing a quotation, attributing the subjective opinion to a source rather than stating the opinion as fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

{tps}} @Anachronist: I am aware of that fact. However before contributing to an article, I read the word phrasing of other pages and use that as a rough draft. With that being said, I do have sources to back what I wrote. But I've noticed that every sentence is a Wikipedian article is not required to have a source behind, which is why I did not add one. Horizonlove (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mord Fustang

Mord Fustang rejected

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mord Fustang and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I felt that you raised the bar too high. You ignored the notability policies like significant coverage and musical criteria to dismiss it because you felt that it should be as good as featured articles since it was deleted few times in the past. I accepted it as it passes the musical criteria for notability and has significant coverage. - TheMagnificentist 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mord Fustang (Estonian DJ) accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Draft:Mord Fustang

If a page is salted, such as Mord Fustang, you should not be trying to make an end-run by giving it a different name. It's also a bit suspect when you accept your own draft after getting it declined by another reviewer; it implies an attempt at GAMING the system. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Primefac, I believe the article is good enough for inclusion in the Misplaced Pages but SwisterTwister declined it because it had been deleted several times. His opinion is that the article should be as good as a featured article in order to be accepted. I have made a request to unsalt the page at RPP but didn't get any response from the protecting admin Rhaworth who only tagged it for AfC which was only then I found out about it after moving it back to my subpage. - TheMagnificentist 12:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the RPP request was automatically declined because the first request you made (to create the article directly) was declined. I'll review the page and (if I feel it's decent) I'll see about getting it unsalted. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Steve Aoki. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)