User talk:Brother Bulldog/Archive 2013

Nomination of Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Phillips (merchant mariner) 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ink Master

Please adhere to the workflow title of INUSE when attempting to make changes or updates to a wiki article. Your editing is causing conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintampa5 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies, Kevintampa5. The INUSE header doesn't show up on the mobile version of the page unless you go into the "this page has some issues" section. I didn't mean to step on your toes.

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Fields (2014 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Mackenzie (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) 12:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2013 Pittsburgh Pirates season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carlos Martínez and Carlos Martinez

Low Winter Sun (Channel 4) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AMC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Las Vegas vs. Las Vegas Valley

(note: the first entry is copied from Vegaswikian's talk page, so the conversation can be viewed in its entirety)

I understand your point about "Las Vegas" being used very generally; as someone who has lived in both "Pittsburgh" (actually Allison Park, Pennsylvania) and "Los Angeles" (actually Orange, California), I can certainly sympathize. However, if there is no evidence that a given person or group is from a differently named area (Henderson, Enterprise, etc) and their official pages list their home as Las Vegas, it makes little sense not to take them at their word. Unless you can provide definitive evidence that someone is NOT from Las Vegas proper, and they report that they are, please do not change links to state they are from the "Las Vegas Valley". - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Las Vegas is ambiguous, and it is generally used that way. As a general rule, anyone in the valley not in Henderson or North Las Vegas, though many of them will also say Vegas, says they are from Las Vegas. Since the population of that area is has about 1.5 million people and the city only 500,000 most of these people are not from the city. Bottom line all of these are from the Las Vegas Valley, which I have long argued should be at Las Vegas to avoid these issues, but if you have a specific source that says the city then use it. To assume that usage of Las Vegas means you are from the city is usually an error and is WP:OR. So of you are going to claim the city, provide a city specific citation. This is not like LA where most everything is incorporated, most of the population lives in unincorporated areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but if a group reports in multiple places (as The Vermin has done) that they are from Las Vegas, it is no longer an assumption on an editor's part that they are from that location. In this case, it is more of an assumption that they are NOT from the city of Las Vegas. The fact that 2/3 of the metropolitan population do not live in the city proper is not in and of itself reason to ambiguate. If there is evidence to the contrary, by all means present it, but otherwise it makes sense to trust the sources that report the band is, in fact, from Las Vegas and not elsewhere in the valley. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Loudflower for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loudflower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loudflower 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) DS (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm just surprised that sandboxes get patrolled at all, given their purpose. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Vermin

Hi.

I want to clarify my edits on The Vermin page. Your edit of the date that the band is formed is incorrect, they formed in 1986. The link you quote as a reference is incorrect. The Vermin is my brother Dirk Vermin's band, I have also released all of their vinyl and CD's (except for the Vermin From Venus releases). I run the label Wood Shampoo Records and used to run Behemoth Records.

The link to the Vermin From Venus LP is here: http://www.discogs.com/Vermin-From-Venus-Sex-On-Planet-X/release/2239859. All of the band members (except for Kelly Clark and Derek Weishaupt) are also confirmed on discogs. This proves Derek Weishaupt and Kelly Clark were in The Vermin as they are both introduced as new members: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cnrL7CSWA

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add everything and don't want to get into an editing war.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodshampoo (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that you may have personal information about the band that is more accurate than the cited sources; however, references are what make Wikipedia function. If everyone edited articles based on what they know to be correct, it would be chaos. If the band was indeed founded in 1986, surely there is a reliable source out there that would reflect that. (Perhaps an official page on Wood Shampoo's site?) When you have references, such as the Vermin From Venus page, be sure to add them into the appropriate place in the article. Finally, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your username, since it reflects a business, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. I would suggest you ask to change your username as soon as possible. Happy editing! - Brother Bulldog (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Look at the Vermin's official Facebook page the date is there, 1986 (https://www.facebook.com/VerminVegas). You are quoting an internet article cobbled together from existing articles none of which state the date the band was formed, I don't know where the author got the date from but it is wrong. So you are telling me that any incorrect information on an obscure website is now fact because it is online? [User:Woodshampoo|Woodshampoo]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Facebook page you referenced, which has only been in existence for four months, the VERY FIRST POST on the page was a link to an article in the Las Vegas Weekly that ALSO cites the band's formation date as 1984. Check it out for yourself. Multiple published sources trump Facebook every time as reliable. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong is wrong no matter where you pull it from. The Las Vegas Weekly article pulled that date from Interpunk which has their formation date as 1986 / Check it out for yourself.. The Interpunk bio pre-dates everything you are basing your argument on. Why is their Facebook page not a reliable source, it is straight from the horses's mouth? I just want my brother's Wikipedia page to be correct, I don't understand putting false info on there. - Woodshampoo (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Interpunk site (which, as a store, would normally be considered less reliable than the Weekly) lists two dates, 1986 and 1994. It also says "ten years later" as the time span between the two. 1994 minus ten years would be 1984. There is clearly a lot of disagreement on this point, and I will make a note on the article indicating that the founding date is disputed. However, listing the date as solely 1986 would require something more definitive than either of us has apparently been able to find. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Interpunk bio was written by their bass player. The 2 dates you mentioned are 1986 when Vermin From Venus formed and 1994 when they shortened their name to The Vermin. Also their Facebook page is only a few months old but is pre-dated by a few years by a Vermin Facebook group, this is their bio copied right from the page written by a band member:

"IN 1986 DIRK AND RUCKUS STARTED PLAYING IN LAS VEGAS IN VERMIN FROM VENUS AND RUCKUS RESPECTFULLY. 15 YEARS AGO THE TWO JOINED FORCES AND BECAME, THE VERMIN. AFTER PLAYING AND RECORDING OUR FIRST RECORD "HELL OR LAS VEGAS" WITH ANTHONY HUDAK, WE ENLISTED GERRY [TURBO] PROCTOR ON DRUMS. THIS HAS BEEN THE LINE UP EVER SINCE AND WILL BE TILL THE LAST SHOW. WE PUT OUT 4 OTHER FULL LENGTHS "THE VERMIN-VS-YOU", "LOOSE WOMEN, HARD LIVIN' AND THE DEVIL" & "A FIST FULL OF HELL" AND THE NEW ONE "JOE'S SHANGHAI" (Available at iNTERPUNK, CDBABY....) ON WOOD SHAMPOO RECORDS. ALSO A FEW COMPILATIONS AND ONE 45 OF DAMNED COVERS FOR NEAT DAMNED NOISE AND A LOCAL 4 WAY SPLIT ON FACE FIRST RECORDS. WE ARE FEATURED IN THE MOVIE "SWITCH KILLER" PLAYING "DEAD FRIENDS". WE ONLY PLAY SO. CAL, New York, OR VEGAS AND HAVE PLAYED WITH - FEAR, THE GERMS, AGENT ORANGE, CIRCLE JERKS, DEAD MOON, BATTALION OF SAINTS, PHANTOM SURFERS, MAKERS, BOMBORAS, TSOL, DOA, THE GEARS, THE WEIRDOS, THE METEORS, THE ADZ, DEADBOLT, LORDS OF ALTAMONT, REVEREND HORTON HEAT, THE HORROR POPS, CHARLEY HORSE, THE CONFEDERACY OF SCUM SUPERSHOW, THE LAS VEGAS SHAKEDOWN, THE MODERN DRUNKARD CONVENTION & EVERY DOUBLE DOWN ANNIVERSARY................... WE DRINK ALOT. WE CURSE ALOT, AND WE PLAY PUNK ALOT!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW GO EAT A BAG OF DICK'S."

I still don't understand your argument that incorrect data on a website can be presented as fact. I've been in the Las Vegas Weekly in addition to my brother and we have both been misquoted &/or had incorrect info in the the article. So you're telling me any false info now becomes fact because it appears in print?

What do I have to do to get this fixed? I can have each band member call you and confirm this. I can have a public notary submit a signed statement. There is no dispute. The band formed in 1986, I was there, they practiced at my house, I released their records. Woodshampoo (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Phone calls and notarized statements are not necessary or beneficial. This is a community based on evidence from reliable sources, and the evidence of which date is most accurate is limited to nonexistent. If you are insistent on having this corrected, and you have the access to the band that you say you do, the easiest way to resolve it would be to have the band mention their formation date on their official website. Short of that, there would have to be a preponderance of evidence pointing to one over the other, and I don't believe that is currently the case. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the phone call & statements. Their official website is under construction, if I get it to say 1986 will you correct this? I've presented you with 3 different sources, granted 2 are Facebook but those are/were their official pages. And unlike your sources all 3 come directly from the band.

I am basically Dirk Vermin's online face. I am an administrator for his Facebook page and The Vermin's. It matters to me that this is corrected as this is pretty much a permanent record. When I posted a link to this on The Vermin's page I got shit from current and ex band members over all of the mistakes. There are still minor flaws in the article but the one glaring one is the formation date. I will contact the guy building their site and make sure that the formation date is on the page. Woodshampoo (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if the band's official site lists their formation date then the burden becomes proving that the official site is wrong, which in this case would be next to impossible. Having their site as a source would effectively fix the entire problem. For that matter, if the band would put a history blurb up it would likely become the definitive source, and thus the primary reference for their Wiki page. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)