User talk:Chubbles/Archive 9

A year ago ...
many kinds of music
	... you were recipient; no. 1700 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

DYK for Jolly Roger Records

On 5 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jolly Roger Records, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jolly Roger Records had its bootlegs of RCA Records recordings manufactured at RCA's own vinyl record pressing plant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jolly Roger Records. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jolly Roger Records), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Suh

I have no objection to this edit, but I am curious about it. What is the rationale? Un school 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The additional information didn't seem necessary in a hatnote. The article already says who she is (and isn't even that long), and despite the fact that their names are phonetically similar, they are so orthographically different that they don't really seem likely to be confused with each other. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was honestly not in tremendously good shape, so you inspired me to do a little gardening. Thanks Chubbles (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am less sure that they won't be confused. More and more people are doing search with voice (that in fact is how I first came to take interest in the hatnote) and I think that someone could easily land on the wrong page and be confused until they had done a lot of reading. Anyway, good work on the article. Un school 05:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lounge music/easy listening, etc.

I'm new, and sent you an email before figuring out Talk Page messaging. Regarding our little editing argument...Would you please consider this: both the terms "easy listening" and "lounge music" ("elevator music" would be another) are usually pejorative terms in the mind of anyone under 60; plus, they're not the idioms in which Walt Wagner plays. He has played IN a lounge, but does not play anything close to "lounge music" (or "easy listening") as defined by Wikipedia or even American Heritage. Also, none of your references (media reviews) say Wagner plays in those styles. In your mind, can't "pop" (which is already there) encompass those terms? Is it important to sub-divide "pop" into still more delineations of styles? I hope this seems reasonable, and that you can be okay with dropping the "easy listening"/"lounge music" descriptors. Swaldi (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lounge music/easy listening, etc.

Hi Chubbles - Maybe we can agree that arguing about the terms "lounge music" or "easy listening" is getting kinda subjective. The broad category, "pop", is definitely inclusive of those descriptors. "Lounge music" hardly has a widely-accepted meaning (anymore), and isn't a helpful label for understanding what Wagner's music sounds like. Having been played in cocktail lounges doesn't make music into "lounge music", "easy listening" or "cocktail music", any more than playing in an opera house makes music into "classical". (BTW, when you say "at least one source refers to Wagner as a cocktail-lounge pianist"... that one article mentioned the term only to make the point that his music does NOT fit into that mold.) Whether Wagner is playing in a lounge or a concert hall, his music overall has much more dynamic range than those terms portray. Oscar Peterson, e.g., included many softer ballads in his records and performances, and worked many lounges; it would be difficult to find anywhere those terms applied to him - "jazz" is all-inclusive in his case, and enough. Without "easy listening" or "lounge music", you still have four accurate designations which encompass everything Wagner plays: pop, rock, jazz and classical. Please, let's delete "lounge music" and just use the four broad categories, ok? Swaldi (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charles Chadwick (novelist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Chadwick (novelist) 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/Charles Chadwick (novelist) 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..

You created this article back in 2008, I think. Tacyarg (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Malach

This method of creating articles without inline citations is unacceptable, especially from an experienced editor. Please add inline citations from reliable sources to all material in an article.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cheek

Hello! You reverted my edits to Chris Cheek, restoring large parts of the article that were unsourced. I've reverted them back. If you are going to add back that material, it needs sources. You also removed the COI and notability tags without addressing the problems. Please have a look at the COIN discussion, as it's a likely promotional page. Thanks104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there; there is no need for basic cataloging and publishing data to be rigorously sourced, since it is directly attached to the published source itself. Furthermore, Cheek is notable. That said, COI patrol is certainly justified, and I will continue to work with you on that front. Chubbles (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ashley Beedle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ashley Beedle, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen,ser pages are for you to write about your activities on Wikipedia, and are not for promotion. I deleted your article because

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to hi or an associated company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he claims or interviewing him.
There were no references at all. There were a random collection of urls at the bottom, but they were not in-line so we can't tell what fact each is supporting, and in any case none seemed to be independent third-party sources. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. You refer to him throughout by his first name, all very matey but unencyclopaedic, and your unsourced claims presented as fact include: epic edit... The track went on to chart at #1 on the Jamaican National Charts... scored a massive dance hit... His biggest dance remix success. At best, it's a fan page.
Recent additions to the article were largely created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if they were copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy.
Much of the text was written by Beedle himself, an obvious conflict of interest.

I checked the history, but this article never seems to have had proper references or been more than an unsourced fan page. This is the third time that it has been deleted. I have some doubts about your sources, but he appears to be notable, so I'll restore as a draft so you can clean it up before reposting. It will be at Draft:Ashley Beedle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can obviously access the history if there is a better starting point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chubbles/David Nance

As requested. Sorry for the delay. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Bonus Tracks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Japanese Bonus Tracks. Since you had some involvement with the Japanese Bonus Tracks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa

"This was nowhere close to A7-able..." You are perfectly right. I can't think what I was thinking of. I wonder if I confused it with another page I had been looking at in another browser tag. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mastersystem

The article Mastersystem has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A group releasing an album does not make it notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Rapper

Lil Peep (Gustav Åhr) was a Swedish citizen through his Father, thus explaining the addition of “Swedish” to his nationality. The most credible source of this would be his twitter as he had posted this before though 1. Is that a valid source? and 2. Where would I put that source if I could? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardGoose (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Hello, Chubbles. When you changed Yacht Rock from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Yacht Rock" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural prominence, important indie labels

Your objections to my proposals rest on shaky ground. How you define a record label that has "cultural prominence"? How do you define whether an indie label is "important"? Are these objective terms that everyone agrees to, or are they subjective preferences of yours? Next, does the absence of attention given to these articles over the course of ten years factor into your judgment? What about the absence of content and the absence of independently sourced content? I assume these mean nothing in the face of "cultural prominence." I hope you're not cherry picking when to follow Wikipedia's rules.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no concrete set of guidelines for what makes a record label notable. There's a longstanding dispute over whether WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC is the better guideline for assessing their notability; I have argued at great length for the latter, but I recognize that it is not an opinion universally held. Everything I edited recently has at least a reasonable case under the definition given at WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are guidelines. I've had this talk with you before. My guess is you are letting your own preferences get in the way of what's best for Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to be impartial. You answered none of my questions, and they are sensible, logical, legitimate questions especially in the context of deletion proposals. As to your claim that there is a longstanding dispute over two choices: I see only you arguing for the second instead of the first, and I'm including the comments of admin that I've read. Don't take another simple matter and complicate it. If there were that many people interested in these articles which you think you are saving like stray cats, then there would have been more participation in those articles over the past TEN years. There really is no debate.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've had this talk with me before, but you seem to be interested in having a great deal more discussion on the topic, so let's continue. As I see it, you have two main bones to pick here: 1) my choice of guideline for assessing record label notability, and 2) the lack of editor attention to record label articles. I will address them each. As for 1), I argue for the latter because I do not believe the former is a good way to organize information about record labels. It does not serve readers interested in music for record labels to be assessed the same way widget manufacturers are assessed, any more than it would be for bands themselves to be assessed the same way widget manufacturers are assessed (even though bands are, unquestionably, businesses). WP:MUSIC exists for a reason. I will leave it to other people who do think WP:CORP is the best way to think about record labels to argue that point. It's not reasonable for you to demand impartiality from me on that point; I am not involved in arbitration - I am making a case that this is the better way to do things. (If you're really interested in deeply assessing my reasoning, you can see the voluminous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc..) As for 2), the current status of an article is not relevant to the notability of the topic. It's quite common for articles on notable topics to go neglected and unedited for years at a time - this will become ever more so in ensuing decades. So, no. The lack of editor attention to an article plays no role at all in my judgment of its potential notability. (WP:ARTN is my guiding philosophy here.) Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do want to talk about it, if only because I can't figure out why I fail to make progress on such trivial points. When I said "attention by people", I meant who we on Wikipedia call IP editors. You meant that, too, right? You seem to miss the connection between attention (popularity) and notabilty. I'm not saying they're identical, but they're certainly connected. If much has been written about a subject in reliable sources, then that subject is likely to have an article about it, whether you and I care about the subject or not. I have to live with the consequences of that, too, just like you, and they are not always positive. But I'm not looking for loopholes to undermine Wikipedia. I accepted the rules when I signed on.

Record labels don't get a lot of press, so I wouldn't expect there to be many articles about them outside of Billboard magazine. In fact, labels means less today than they ever have. What I find on Wikipedia instead is the kind of label article I would expect: inchoate, promotional, and slapdash, articles that make the rest of Wikipedia look sloppy and dumb. Why not call a spade a spade, right? An editor ought to care about that. We assess the damage before we improve. You like to talk about the importance of the subject, but I'm addressing what we're supposed to be addressing—the quality of the articles themselves. The text in front of us. You tell me, for example, it's common for articles to have little or no editing over the course of ten years. Really? I don't know that. And I don't think it's true. More to the point, when I propose deletion, it's about a particular article, not an entire subject. I'm not eliminating anything from the face of the earth. I'm suggesting an article be deleted. If there is interest in that article, and that is a criterion whether you like it or not, then others out there will come along and write about it. No interest, no writing. That's reality. No one benefits from having crappy articles continue to exist. But that's a matter you rarely mention—the content. I'm certain that the quality of an article is the first thing a reader will notice. Ugly and messy turn people off. Red links turn people off. Cheesy advertising and POV promotion turn people off. Fawning and hero worship turn people off. Bias turns people off.Vmavanti (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these quality issues you point out are arguments for cleanup. They are not arguments for deleting an article; we delete the article if it is not notable, regardless of whether it is in crappy shape or makes the encyclopedia look bad (or, for that matter, is spit-polished clean). My thoughts here are neatly encapsulated in WP:NOWORK. I can certainly understand that sometimes these problems in an article might set off intuitions that the topic is not notable; they do so for me, too. But I follow through on these intuitions by considering whether and how notability is asserted or might be asserted for the topic prior to proposing its deletion. Chubbles (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say quality problems were arguments for deletion. I said there are consequences to junk articles and that conclusions can be drawn from that, conclusions which are logical, not "intuitions". Intuition is what you are using. I have a reason for everything change I make. My only criterion in judging the deletion of an article ought to be your only criterion: whether the article has enough independent sources to justify its notability. "Cultural prominence", which you haven't defined, has no role in it. You have invented a criterion to give yourself free play, wiggle room, and subjectivity to have things your way or to prop up some agenda or cause of your own. My criterion comes straight from the documentation. I don't expect you to like what I'm saying or to ever agree with me about anything. I do hope that eventually you will agree with my basic point and that someday you put the interests of Wikipedia ahead of your own.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an article currently contains referencing via independent sourcing is not determinant of notability, and the documentation makes this clear. The threshold (one of the thresholds!) is whether enough such sourcing exists - this is a crucial distinction you're missing here. Furthermore, it's not the only yardstick for assessing notability, nor should it be (and here, of course, I disagree with editors who act as if it is, or who attempt to move policy in that direction). Keep in mind that sourcing for notability is not an end in itself; it's a proxy for importance or prominence - is this thing, whatever it is, important enough to be worth writing about to a wider audience? It's one yardstick by which we attempt to come to a consensus about what topics are of enduring interest to our readers. Careful that you don't put the cart before the horse, here. Chubbles (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it appears you are methodically going through some list of record labels alphabetically and drive-by prodding them if they don't have a raft of sources attached. Please set me aright if there is more to your method. As it stands, a lot of these decisions look hasty, and I don't have much in the way of reservations about contesting them. I only wish I'd had a record label in the A's on my watchlist. Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do anything "drive-by", so let's cut the insults out right away. I think about every edit. I have reasons for every edit. I am using a list. I'm not looking for a "raft" of sources. "Raft" is another insult and an exaggeration. You're suggesting that I'm being hasty, careless, thoughtless, and perhaps excessively—what?—fastidious? scrupulous? conscientious? Following the rules of Wikipedia, I look for independent, reliable sources, and for most labels there are few, as you know. That's one reason why many of these articles have barely been touched in ten years.

Your objections to my proposals so far have been two:

1) To merge the label rather than delete it, which in some cases might be useful and easy enough to do.
2) To keep the label because it follows "WP:MUSIC's definition of one of the more important indie labels".

Would you explain in simple terms what this definition is and how it applies in each case to the articles you want to retain? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC reads: "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." This is the only thing we have currently serving as guideline for judging the notability of labels, specifically. I proposed more robust criteria for labels at WP:MUSIC some months ago, and I seemed to be getting somewhere, but the discussion began to founder on whether or not exact number counts should be set to serve as thresholds for notability, which I thought unhelpful (we don't set some number X sources to meet the GNG, and for good reason), so I ended up abandoning it. But perhaps, if I were more persistent, I might get more traction with it. Chubbles (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that record labels should be judged differently from any other business, company, or organization, that they should not be judged by WP:ORG. Moreover, in my time on Wikipedia I've been told several times that notability isn't inherited, but you want to make a special case that it should be for record labels. Your reason is that record labels are special. You say that they have "cultural prominence" and "cultural influence" but those are subjective terms. Influence in particular is impossible to judge impartially if at all. Both terms are subjective. If you defined them I haven't found it, though I did read the debate that you linked to where you introduced your ideas about what the rule should be. Taking the rules into more subjective territory like influence and cultural prominence is a dead end for Wikipedia. It goes against the goal of Wikipedia to remain impartial and stick to the facts. Your rule would lead to an increase in endless, fruitless, unresolvable debates.

I see no reason to diverge from the rule that articles require ample independent, reliable sources to be notable. I see reason to go along with your bias which is reflected in your arguments, in the degree in music that you list on your User page, and in the hundreds of articles you have created about obscure musicians. In the debate you mention discographers and musicologists, but this is such a small percentage of the population as to be hardly worth mentioning. While working on many music articles, I haven't found one useful, reliable discographer who does a better job than the often wrong AllMusic. Wikipedia isn't a collector's catalog. It's for everyone. Its audience is everyone. Your desire to be a champion for the underdog is incompatible with the goals and rules of Wikipedia. Editors should approach their work without an agenda.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can hold this line; many editors do. But the simple fact of the matter is, we have more than one standard for notability (which, before it was codified by Wikipedia, was simply a stand-in for importance). And the reason for that is that to figure out whether and why something is notable (that is, why it is important), we can, as human beings, use any number of different yardsticks to judge these concepts. Wikipedians tend to hold one of those yardsticks above all - the GNG. But we also have quite a few other yardsticks - the subject-specific guidelines. Sometimes, hewing to the GNG in all cases would rob the encyclopedia of things we recognize as valuable to the record of human knowledge - geographical places that have not, to our knowledge, ever been the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources, Olympic bronze medalists and fully professional sports players that have not, to our knowledge, ever been the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources, and, yes, musicians who have won major awards and charted hits and put out album after album on big-name labels that have not, to our knowledge, ever been the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources. (Furthermore, meeting the GNG isn't an ironclad stand-in for notability, either - WP:BIO1E tells us that you may not be notable even if you meet the GNG!) So it is for record labels. There certainly are useful sources for record labels - there are published paper discographies and databases such as Allmusic, which can provide substantial information about who is signed to what label (though they often lack detailed prose descriptions about the label); there are reissue compilations which are often helpful in putting together a label's backstory. But I don't think labels deserve to be held solely to the GNG any more than I think musicians or bronze medalists or tiny hamlets in Indonesia or northern Canadian lakes or obscure insect species ought to be held solely to the GNG. If half-a-dozen multiple-paragraph sources specifically about each of these things were a prerequisite in all cases to their having an article, Wikipedia would be immeasurably poorer (and, no doubt, would never have become the internet juggernaut it is today). Chubbles (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging white

Your proposal to merge white jazz has been live and unopposed for 6 weeks. That's long enough: you can go ahead and do it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! I guess I missed responding to you at the time you issued this - I think I was kind of confused about what it was. Chubbles (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize from the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... two years ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Dear Chubbles,

You are cordially invited to join the Portals WikiProject.

This is a very active project. We are in the process of completely revamping the entire portal system, and cleaning up the portal namespace. After these are done, we'll be greatly expanding the collections of portals. We have many design discussions going on, and many task types to choose from.

We also have a newsletter, that covers the progress of portal development, and the latest toys.

If you are interested, please feel welcome to sign-up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Project_participants.

By the way, I'm very interested in what you think of portals. What do you like most about them? What do they lack that they should have? What can't they do, that you would like them to be able to do?

I look forward to your replies. — The Transhumanist 09:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Please {{ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT

Nomination of Animal Chin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Animal Chin 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/Animal Chin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Hello Chubbles, you have been re-editing the Stafford James page after our edits of which some we disagree as we know the subject a little better. What you can do though is assist with translation into the German language as there are serious errors on that page. Thank you. (Esjaybass (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Edit to Glassine

I removed the text around the footnote, but not the footnote itself, because the citation covered the paperboard and rocketry information that came before it. Was that information not in the citation? 208.95.51.47 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote linked to a product listing from a commercial supplier of glassine evidence baggies. Chubbles (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akitoshi Igarashi

Any idea why I'm getting a "Citation with format and no URL" error on the page you created for Akitoshi Igarashi? I don't see it.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. A few days ago, an editor added a number of video-citation templates, using them for discographical information. I don't know why; it doesn't seem like optimal markup structure, though they come out looking fairly nice in the wash. I imagine if you're editing the page and getting errors, it may have something to do with those. Chubbles (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just it, Chubbles. I've taken a stab at fixing this problem. First of all, there is no such template as "cite video"; it should be "cite AV media". (The editor who did this got away with it because, apparently, there is some mechanism where a template inherits the more generic "cite" format from Citation Style 1 templates in general if that particular type of template does not actually exist. So it worked anyway.) The real problem here is that the parameter "format" is supposed to be used only to refer to the format of a page referred to by a URL optionally supplied (like PDF), and you get an error if there is no URL parameter. (See Template:Cite AV media.) "type" is the parameter needed to supply the type of audio/visual media. I made the appropriate substitutions, and it looks like that worked to remove the error condition. Worst case, if I've overlooked or messed up something myself, my edit can be reverted. Hope this helps. --Alan W (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chubbles (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It seems obvious now. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labels again

Do you foresee an end to this kind of thing? A change of mind, perhaps? Your edit histories don't argue against deletion. They express your opinion that "this was an important hip hop label" or "this label contains notable acts". Neither of those comments has anything to do with Wikipedia. The notability of an act has nothing to do with whether an article about a label is kept. Notability is not magically transferred from a person to an organization. Moreover, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide importance. That is for readers to decide. It is not our job to tell them what to value or how to think. Importance is subjective, and you shouldn't be using that as a basis for your decisions. I know that you know this. I know you've heard this before, but I'm keeping hope alive that people can change their minds.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ad-hoc system we seem to have generated here actually works quite well. You are systematically looking through a category looking for things to throw out; I look for babies in the bathwater. At the end of the day, a few things go, and a few things stay; in the middle, we converse over what belongs in which pile. The messy work of consensus, at work. Chubbles (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It doesn't work because it's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'm following the rules and you're not. Your claim that I'm "looking for things to throw out" is wrong. I have no feelings about any of these articles. If an article qualifies for deletion, it should be deleted. You may think of yourself as an inclusionist but I don't think of myself as a deletionist. Although the terms mean almost nothing to me, I have to deal with them when I see others adhere to them and join a team. I don't "look to" delete any more than I throw out the baby with the bathwater. I try to make measured, moderate judgments. You dislike my judgments because you have strong feelings and preferences about certain subjects, but that doesn't mean they are bad judgments. Your attempt to set us up as polar opposites and then split the difference is unpersuasive. The documentation is our guide in what gets deleted. I would like to see editors who know better, and you do know better, stick to the documentation rather than follow their own arbitrary set of rules. Consensus works when we follow the rules, not when we create our own.
Vmavanti (talk)

I, too, am following the rules; I, too, am making measured, moderate judgments. Perhaps our worst flaws are that we cannot see this in each other. Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. Consensus assumes discussion. There hasn't been much discussion and there won't be as long as you direct the traffic of your thoughts into exits and offramps. You abstract away from the practical matters at hand. You don't want to talk about rules. You talk about how they are inadequate to your purposes and how you see yourself involved in a higher purpose of importance that the rules don't cover. You have your own definition of notability. You have admitted that most people don't see these matters your way. You tell me that they have been debated before and that in your mind the situation is unresolvable. Taking the subject up into the clouds is certainly a way to keep it unresolved. The wheels keep spinning to maintain perpetual inertia.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...There's not a single sentence of that last statement that is an accurate depiction of my actions, motives, or beliefs. Shall we start from the beginning, again? I am not getting through. Chubbles (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not one? Haven't you told me that rules for notability of record labels is inconclusive if not nonexistent, that notability for companies doesn't apply to labels, that it has been debated before, that most people disagreed with you? You didn't provide me with a link to one such discussion? Are you saying none of that occurred? I don't want to start again. I want you to be honest and save us both wasted time and wasted effort.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's break that down, phrase by phrase:

Yes, the rules for notability of record labels are inconclusive; there's no clear guideline specifically for them, other than what is mentioned in WP:MUSIC in passing. That is why there is so much debate over how to judge their importance, including this conversation.
Does notability for companies apply to labels? That's not a factual, yes-or-no answer. It's an interpretive one - should notability for companies apply to labels? We have not conclusively decided as a community. I have argued that it should not - just as it should not for bands (even though bands are unquestionably organizations, and often are, indeed, for-profit companies).
Yes, it has been debated before - I started one of the conversations, though there are others.
Some people disagree with me; I would be a sociopath if I were oblivious to this fact. If I gave you the impression that consensus was against me, you probably misread my jaded weariness at having to explain my position on the matter time and time again to people who are only familiar with WP:CORP and not with WP:MUSIC. (No, not you.) I often offhandedly speak as if the world is against me (especially to people I infer may share my sympathies on the topic of discussion - yes, you, initially), but you have helped me see that this is a poor rhetorical strategy, because it comes off as acquiescence. I am not acquiescing.
I provided you with a link to an inconclusive discussion, one I abandoned because I tired of the protracted business of policymaking and wanted to do other things with my life. Most people did not disagree with me in that discussion (and even if they had, it does not mean that they were right, nor that they could not be convinced otherwise; you are clearly aware of your logical fallacies, and we must of course avoid the argumentum ad populum here.) A variety of nuanced positions were taken. Perhaps I should have been more persistent; it's water under the bridge, now. I did so as a courtesy to inform you openly of information I thought you would be interested to read about. I would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to weaponize it against me in this conversation. Chubbles (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Weaponize" is as melodramatic as "not a single sentence" and just as false. You might want to go back and read what you wrote to me. You volunteered the link as an example of your beliefs on the subject. Reading it and reminding you of it isn't going against you, unless you are saying those views are not longer representative of your position. Far from going against you, I'm taking you at your word. I'm trying to find out what you believe, which is how discussion, debate, and the search for consensus are supposed to be handled. What good is an opinion that can't withstand a little scrutiny? If you find those beliefs buckling, that could be an indication that it's time to change your mind, perhaps applying those beliefs where they might be more useful. Although you claim you are tired of policymaking and that you want to spend your time elsewhere, it seems you have not changed. The world isn't against you. I reject the notion that there has to be an Us v. Them, a competition between teams, a battle between armies. This is a particular discussion on a particular subject and particular articles. Disagreement itself isn't a virture. There have to be good reasons for one's editing decisions. Those reasons are what is supposed to be debated on Talk pages. Thank your for responding and giving honest replies.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well...my opinion has withstood quite a bit of scrutiny here, and I have learned much here about how to couch it in a way that will be less likely to be misunderstood or taken out of context. I wish my peer-reviewed academic papers had been subject to the level of scrutiny you have delivered to my Wikiphilosophy. Chubbles (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has it? I see little in the way of substantive defense or elaboration or debate on your part. Are you saying you have been misunderstood or taken out of context? Where? Holding your cards to your chest isn't exactly ethical discussion. You continue to reject deletion proposals based on the label having signed notable acts. That's not a good enough reason. The notability of the label is independent of the acts. Some acts sign with many labels during their careers.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a label is not independent of its acts. WP:MUSIC suggests a tight connection between the two, as I have pointed out repeatedly. If a label signed no or very few noteworthy acts, it would only survive here by meeting the GNG - I imagine there are few cases of that, though I could see it happening (e.g., a local soul label that is later touted as representative of a scene, of the sort routinely reissued by The Numero Group). But labels with a significant roster of acts that meet WP:MUSIC for other reasons are likely to be notable, and so I contest. These are important things; they are things that are encyclopedic; they are things, therefore, that Wikipedia should cover. You don't have to like this answer, nor do you have to agree with it; but I do hope that, after these many thousands of words, you at least understand the rationale by which I am acting. Chubbles (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tignor

Hi Chubbles,

I saw your recent comment on a page about me which I have been editing for correctness. You said "The releases on Western Vinyl will hurdle WP:MUSIC, but there are plenty of other things about this article that need attention." Can you offer specific advice for how this page might be fixed up to remove the warnings at top? There are certainly countless, interviews, features from major sources (e.g. NY Times, The Wire, Pitchfork) out there that could be included here if useful. I am very new to Wikipedia editing myself. Also, perhaps these fixes should be done by someone else to avoid conflicts of interest (I received such a warning recently)? Thanks for your guidance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctignor (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctignor (talk)

Thanks so much for this guidance. As suggested, I added numerous notable journalism links to Christopher Tignor's talk page and will put the word out (or wait, fingers crossed) for someone else to integrate this information and try to cleanup the language of the article. Ctignor (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labels v. other companies

I would like to see an examination of your belief that record labels should receive special treatment on Wikipedia because they are inherently superior to other companies, in your words, companies that merely produce widgets. In your mind, music isn't merely important, it's Important. Could you explain what you mean by culturally significant? It's not self-evident to me that companies that produce, say, food, shelter, and clothing, or even iPhones, are inferior to a company that makes albums for teenagers. Do you distinguish between forms of music, say classical music and rap? Or you consider "Baby Got Back" an item of museum quality importance that ought to be preserved in amber? Given the uncompromising stubbornness with which grip your beliefs, it ought to be easy to explain them briefly and simply to a dumb American like me.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BADGER. I'll wait for you to quit caricaturing and return to civility before responding further. Chubbles (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the post. Is it your position that record labels require a different rule than those that already exist in Wikipedia? In what way are record labels different from other companies? You have used the terms culturally significant and culturally important, correct? If so, would you define these terms? Discussion can not proceed until terms are defined. Is it your view that notability for a label ought to be defined by whether it has signed notable acts? Thank you for discussing these matters in search of consensus.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to an essay. Essays are not policy: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." Someone had an opinion and you referred me to that opinion. OK. Now back to the matter at hand.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this last comment makes me think you are just trolling me; sensible editors do not ignore such good advice blithely, even if it is "not policy". See WP:DICK. (also not policy.) In the past two years, you have started thirteen different threads on my talk page and edited it more than any editor other than myself - and I have been active more than a decade! ([1]). I have often spoken off-the-cuff to editors in this informal setting, but you pore over my edits like Poirot sussing out a culprit. Why have you spent two years subjecting me to such scrutiny? I get it - you have a different Wikiphilosophy about what belongs here and what doesn't. We edit the same topics, and that leads you to frequently cross paths with articles I have edited, and vice versa. This, I can understand, and am well used to the give and take of. But what makes you think that browbeating me and constantly questioning my motives is a good way to get me to see your way (or to get me to give up and stop editing entirely)? Chubbles (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again I must ask you to refrain from insulting me and distorting the situation. At the same time you accuse me of badgering you and exaggerating your views you call for civility. Then you call me badger, dick, troll, accuse me of browbeating and of stalking you for two years and of wanting you to give up editing altogether. Huh? What? Let's stay on the ground. I don't mind being compared to a French detective because there are similarities between editing and detective work, but I know you meant it as an insult. I guess Poirot is better than Clouseu. I won't question your motives if you won't question mine, OK?

Let's remember what brought us to this impasse. Your removal of proposal for deletion templates has led to my request for an explanation of your edit summaries. That's the beginning of discussion, not the end. I started a new thread to give you a chance to define your terms. We haven't talked about that for two months, let alone two years, so let's drop that kind of thing. If you continue with personal attacks, distortions of responses, and removing deletion templates without discussion, I will have to request the intervention of an admin. I don't want to, but you leave me with little choice.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided copious explanation for why I removed (some of, not all) the PRODs (with rationales) and why I thought it was a good idea, after having my own motives questioned repeatedly (remember saying that I "had an agenda" over and over again - to me, and to others?). It is certainly not impermissible to do so, so I have no idea why you would seek administrator intervention. I am growing tired of re-explaining myself; attending to this conversation (which has ceased yielding constructive new thoughts and is now going in circles) has come to dwarf the amount of time I spend on actual articles. I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I would like to get back to it. I am also a volunteer, and I might devote my freely-given time to things you may think of as less helpful than article quality control and BLP patrol (such as article creation and staving off deletion of potentially notable topics). Please do not begrudge me this. If you have a question that I haven't already answered, I will answer it; otherwise, yes, I understand, you disagree with my thoughts on what belongs here and what doesn't, and you have every right to do so - but it is not constructive to demand explanations over and over again as an expression of disagreement with an editor acting in good faith. Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the comment about agenda. I didn't intend to demean your abilities or imply that you are up to something nefarious. We all have biases that we need to be aware of and try to keep at arms length in the attempt to be impartial. I include myself. I agree that we disagree, but disagreement is the beginning of discussion, right? My understanding of the process is that when editors disagree they work toward some kind of understanding and consensus on Talk pages. I don't have an overarching philosophy about Wikipedia. I take articles one at a time. The only templates I apply to my work are the kind of templates that occur in the documentation. I said before that I reject the idea of taking sides. What I've been digging at is a better understanding of what you mean by cultural significance and importance, which you use in edit summaries to justify keeping an article about a record label. My post about companies might have seemed sarcastic, but I see nothing there that wouldn't arise in a discussion of record labels versus other companies and how we judge them. You said that we shouldn't judge labels the way we judge companies that produce widgets. To me, that's a little bit sarcastic because companies produce items other than widgets. That's what I meant by food, shelter, and clothing, something companies provide us with. But of course there are companies that make things we don't need. So it gets confusing if you mean that labels are more important than other companies. If you mean that they are different, not necessarily superior or inferior, that still leaves your criterion asserted but undefined. Please let me know if I am stating your position incorrectly, as I believe this is the heart of the matter. If I understood what you mean by cultural significance, I might be able to understand why you think Wikipedia needs a different rule for labels. Thank your for responding.
Vmavanti (talk)

We have a guideline for how to handle businesses and organizations. It basically just reiterates that a business or organization must meet the GNG to have an article. We also have a guideline for how to handle music-related topics, such as bands, musicians, albums, and songs. Some of those things - namely, bands and musicians - are also businesses; bands are organizations, associations of people put together for some common purpose or purposes (including profit!). We could point to WP:CORP and say, all bands must meet WP:CORP to merit inclusion. And this would, in a strange sense, be internally consistent. But we don't do that - as far as I know, we have never, ever done that, even once. We use WP:MUSIC instead. We have a set of twelve guidelines, the first of which is the GNG (essentially, what WP:CORP demands), and then eleven other things to look for besides the GNG, to assess a musician or band's notability. We do this because early in Wikipedia's history, people who were interested in music (people interested in this specific type of art, this specific type of culture) banded together and attempted to find common ground about what sorts of things indicate importance or significance in the musical world. They made a list - a good list, in my estimation - that helps editors determine whether some band or musician has a level of importance to merit encyclopedic interest. I think it would have been a terrible idea for people who are mostly interested in assessing notability of corporations and businesses to be the ones determining which bands should have articles and which shouldn't; the rules they would have generated would likely have left out many musicians of enduring interest that a musical encyclopedia could, would, and/or should cover. So it is with labels. The list that the music editors came up with to judge musical notability included verbiage about how to assess the importance of independent record labels; it's not much, but it's a specific statement about notability in a guideline about music, and independent record label articles are, fundamentally, articles about music (they don't make the pages of financial news, except when they get bought out by a major). I think that people who edit and use music-related articles are best suited to make guidelines about what labels should or should not be included, and so I have always pointed to this as the best starting point for assessing label notability. It could say more; I wish it did. But it is the best specific notability guideline we currently have for assessing label notability - far better than WP:CORP. This is mostly recap, but perhaps the practice is valuable, and I think it's about as clear as I can make it. I guess should collate all these thoughts into an essay by this point. Chubbles (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it would have been a terrible idea for people who are mostly interested in assessing notability of corporations and businesses to be the ones determining which bands should have articles and which shouldn't; the rules they would have generated would likely have left out many musicians of enduring interest that a musical encyclopedia could, would, and/or should cover." You're speaking theoretically, right?, when you say "they would have..left many musicians of enduring interest". Do you know that for sure, and if so, how? Is it because you have some other criteria in mind for judging the notability of a musician? Like what? I'm sure you know that determining ahead of time who will be of enduring interest is guesswork. It's subjective and debatable and can't be codified. You have your opinion, others theirs. This is why I'm often pressing you to be more specific, because you may be trying to do the impossible unless you can articulate a better way that's not merely abstract and theoretical. What is it that disqualifies people who assess corporations from assessing musicians and labels? As long as the documentation is clear (enough), what difference does it make who writes about it? I think I understand the points you're making because I've seen them in some form for decades in other contexts. I do sympathize with them, esp. as someone who was educated in the arts and who participated in them. Nevertheless, working for Wikipedia, like working for any company, means compromising and accommodating. Don't you think we can make more progress if we go back to referring to musicians as musicians rather than "artists"? Doesn't dialogue become artificially inflated and unnecessarily divisive when we set up some kind aristocratic hierarchy in which art is good and business is bad? I call it a false dichotomy. I see it in infoboxes. Artist. To me an artist is someone with a paint brush. Regardless, I've chosen to leave alone the independent record labels for the time being except for the jazz labels. Nearly all my time is spent in jazz, but others on this site for years have assigned articles of all kinds to Wikiproject Jazz, and I don't mean merely other genres. I mean other kinds of articles: schools, clubs, festivals, dances, books, movies, even individual words. I have tried to bring some order and definition to these articles, and I've made some progress, but there is often someone whose fiefdom I have to cross. Change comes slowly, and very few people want to change.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fun & Games

How's it going, Chubbles. I noticed you readded on the Fun & Games page the first story that the band was broken up because of a story about an event that happened in LA with UNI Records. Im currently in contact with Sam Irwin, Carson Graham, and Roger Romano that this was never the case, and Fun and Games never played in California at all. The band in question was called Fever Tree, who's singer Dennis Keller was the one who insulted UNI employees. This was corroborated by the Fever Tree's keyboardist, Rob Landes.

The reason the Fun & Games broke up was due to a disagreement with Gulf Pacific Industries about a contractual dispute surrounding a record for the songs One/We. Their contract was bought out and the band became disenchanted by the music industry and decided to split up.

The biography of the band from All Music incorrectly states what happened and the former members of the band asked me to add the corrected history to the page. I would like to alter it back to it's corrected form . I understand you have a degree in music history and I don't want to insult your credentials without reason. Please feel free to reach out to Sam and I at (512) 282-3825 if you have any questions. Jacksirwin (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gene DiNovi

On Gene DiNovi, label first, then comma, then year, right?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted that in from the German article. I prefer the style you give here, but it's not a major concern. Chubbles (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.Vmavanti (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Clark of Eureka Brass Band

Re the Eureka Brass Band article: What is the source for calling Joseph "Red" Clark a "trombonist"? All the photos and recordings I'm familiar with he's playing sousaphone/tuba. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Label Bleu

A year ago when you created the article Label Bleu, you added the template "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it". How do you know the list is incomplete? Where did your list come from? How do I expand it?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a complete discography of the label; it was put together partly from what was mentioned in the source material (which was not comprehensive) and partly by linking artists whose pages already mentioned they had released albums on Label Bleu (which is naturally scattershot). Now that I have lost access to a university library, I no longer have at my fingertips the best jazz reference sources, like Tom Lord and Grove. I don't use it for citations, but I see no reason to distrust Discogs (or for that matter most other crowdsourced discographical sources online) for basic sound recording cataloging data, if you just wanted to fill out the list. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a reason: Wikipedia considers Discogs.com an unreliable source because it relies on user-generated content. Wikiproject Albums has this to say: "Per Wikipedia's guideline on user-generated sources, websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Wikia, and product-related sites such as 45cat.com, Discogs, Rate Your Music or Last.fm. It is also important to be cautious of websites that publish user-submitted album reviews." I don't use Tom Lord's Discography because it lacks release dates. As a courtesy to readers, I avoid using citations that lead to websites that are difficult to access. This includes sites that require readers to register (for free) or pay. New Grove Online is a pay site. I have my own hardcover print copy of New Grove Vols. 1 and 3. I have the print edition of the AllMusic Guide, and it uses release dates. I would like to ask you again to avoid creating red links for subjects that are not notable or may not be notable. Don't pile work onto the shoulders of others. If you are interested in a subject, then you should put some effort into working on it yourself. Don't leave it to someone else who maybe someday somewhere down the road might fix a comma. I'm not trying to offend you, but creating stubs isn't enough, and I know you are capable of much more. I know that you like to help. If you want to write about jazz, there's plenty to do on the Jazz Cleanup Listing here. There are 5245 articles that need work. It would be nice to have someone other than me and EddieHugh take on this ten year backlog. We need v. few new articles in jazz. What we need is to improve existing articles. For what I work on, you really don't need access to a university library. I'm astonished at how many sources on the internet are still free. I know that you probably know all this, but since obviously I don't know where you live or what resources are available to you: My public library can get just about any book on interlibrary loan from a university library. That's a great resource, but I haven't needed it much. I have bought many books inexpensively online solely for use as sources for Wikipedia. I continue to find astonishingly low prices for used books. BookFinder has been v. helpful. Prices may be low because few people read jazz books.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very great deal of unsolicited advice, most of which I was already well aware of. It sounds like you have answered your own questions about Label Bleu, so I don't think I need to add any more. Chubbles (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chubbles. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chubbles. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

I see you've created an amazing number of articles: thanks! Recently I've been more active in the jazz project's cleanup pages, which go back more than a decade. I've been going through some that were tagged in 2011 as not having inline citations. Some of these are ones that you created. Collectively, regardless of who created them, these take a long time to sort out, because I have to go word by word through the contents, checking them against what's in the footnoted source(s), adding inline citations, finding new sources for things that have been added over the years, and cutting bits that are unsourced. I thought that not using inline citations might be something you did in the early days and have moved on from, but see Dave Burns (musician) as an example of the same thing recently. Realistically, with the Burns article, someone's going to add the same tags at some point, then someone's going to find them and do what I've been doing... all of which could be avoided. Is there any chance of changing what you do on new articles, so that there's an inline source stated for everything? (My preference is to have one for every sentence, but even every paragraph would help.) All that's required is to use a <ref name="abc"> citation system, then to put <ref name="abc" /> after each bit of information from that source. I hope that you can make this change for future articles; it would help a lot of current and future editors. EddieHugh (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job supporting jazz music. We need all the help we can get. Mike Armando (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

Why have you removed the template twice?
Vmavanti (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be thick, but I'm not sure what you mean. This message must surely be in response to our little back-and-forth at Jimmy McLin, and my removal (once) of a refimprove template there was actually an accident. I don't have a problem with that tag and will not be removing it again; I had wanted to restore the redlink to a geographical place, which is very much in need of an article. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aaron Dilloway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Dilloway 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/Aaron Dilloway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rules on red links

The second sentence of WP:RED says, "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable ". Several parts interest me. One, notability. When you create red links, do you establish notability before you create them? Two, not only notable but verifiable. Do you ensure that there are enough reliable sources to create an article of substance before you add a red link? Foreign language sources, for example, prevent a source from being verified—unless one is multilingual (most jazz readers are not, most readers of Wikipedia are not). Three, "a page will be created soon". Most people agree that something like 12 years disqualifies as "soon". One need not be a soothsayer to predict what red links are likely to be turned into articles soon. Four, while editing. The point here seems to be red links are secondary, not a goal. One creates red links while in the process of doing something else, such as writing and editing an article. Five, useful. Red links are added because they are useful. They lead to useful articles. A subject which is extremely obscure won't have many readers and is therefore useless. A red link to a subject with few reliable sources with which to write an article is useless. Looking at the sentence again: An article should be created because the subject is notable and verifiable. I should not come upon red links that are clearly not notable. When I do, I unlink them. The next step would be to make sure one is using the proper definitions of notable and verifiable. Do you believe your work methods are consistent with WP:Red? Or does it matter?
Vmavanti (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get that you don't like this, but this is very much how Wikipedia works - it was how Wikipedia was built in its early years, and is still how underrepresented topics get fleshed out. As I started writing in jazz, I would redlink anyone who seemed like he might have a fair claim to notability, and then I would follow the redlinks to see if these people, too, popped up in reference works; many, many of them did, so I wrote those articles, and redlinked, and then wrote those articles, and redlinked...and thus created the mess that you believe you are cleaning up today. Not all of the links led to an obvious slam-dunk article, but I knew enough to know I didn't have all of the potentially valuable sources available to me - especially for non-Anglophone music! And, of course, I made a great number of the redlinks I created blue, often very soon afterwards. But there is no deadline, and if the subject is notable, it doesn't matter how long it's been since the link was created (RED says either/or, quite deliberately). There are some editors who just go out there and remove all the redlinks from pages without doing any looking into the topics; that's not constructive to the encyclopedia. I think, in the end, the process that went on at Eddie Calhoun ended up being very positive: you checked, I checked, and between us, we came to agreement that some of the musicians might well be notable, and others probably weren't. I don't have a problem with those links being removed if the legwork was done and it's fairly clear the musicians aren't known; providing some basic context as to who they were, so the reader understands why they're mentioned in the context of the article, is also a valuable addition where possible. Chubbles (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you admitted that ten years ago you didn't know what you were doing. But you may be wrong about what bothers me. I get into debates with people on Wikipedia whose first assumption is that I don't know what I'm talking doing. Legitimate debate and discussion is how Wikipedia works, not pointless debate. I have a pretty good idea in jazz who is notable and who isn't. But whether the subject is editing or deleting an article, I encounter this religious or quasi-moral resistance to deletion that still leaves me baffled. Any real editor would find it laughable. Editors edit. That means deleting. Among certain people there's a bias in favor of infinite expansion, as though we have all the time in the world. We don't. People who know little or nothing about jazz confront me as though they have all the answers and I'm raining on their parade. Or crusade. This whole business of "saving" articles, as though data on a screen were a living being, leaves me baffled. Until I understand it and get some satisfactory explanations, I'm going to keep digging into it. If people volunteered more information, I would not have to dig as much. When there are over 4000 articles on the jazz cleanup listing that need a lot of work, it's silly to spend one's time creating articles or to worry about "thin coverage". Nothing in the jazz project is "underrepresented" unless you mean existing articles that need work. Even the articles without templates have plenty of room for improvement. I believe in keeping the main thing the main thing and doing what's best for Wikipedia. To me, it's work, not a hobby, not play time, not save the world time. It's foolish to think there's an audience for these obscure red linked people that almost no one has ever heard of.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd have a whale of a time over on the German wiki - you should see their jazz coverage! So much to clean up, so many worthless articles on obscure people to delete... Chubbles (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someday you learn to distinguish between quality and quantity. I'm not interested in what the Germans are doing. I'm interested in the here and now, in what's in front of me.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been moved

Well, it was a bit of a challenge for all involved, but your draft is now where you wanted it. Thanks for your patience. Let me know if people give you a hard time. Risker (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Redland

The article Charles Redland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Couldn't find enough reliable sources for an article of substance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Vmavanti (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Blak Jak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blak Jak 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/Blak Jak (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Lapablo (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hi. Is this Chubbles? Llhess16 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my talk page. Chubbles (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Chiboust

This is another problem with creating stubs about obscure figures. They remain orphans because they have nothing in common with the rest of Wikipedia. There are many of these orphans with your fingerprints on them.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A style quibble. I see this usage all over the place: "his own" as in "his own band" or "his very own band" or "his vewy own widdow band". See? It's cloying.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discog reverts

I know you don't like to discuss this on your Talk page, but I'm puzzled about why you are reverting my edits when I am returning the discographies to how they appear in Discogs.com. Isn't that what all the arguing was about? I'm putting them back the way you want them and you still don't like it. So what's the problem?
Vmavanti (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make the discographies as comprehensive as possible. As it happens, most albums are listed on Discogs, because it's pretty darn robust, but we should list a studio album from a notable artist even if Discogs doesn't have a listing for it (yet). On the Forman and Flory pages, you removed albums that are listed on Discogs. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As comprehensive as possible" is inconsistent with "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I don't know where you got those albums, but I'll take your word for it. Don't be surprised if it happens again.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not indiscriminate to have a comprehensive list of studio albums for a notable musician. What albums can't you find? I will demonstrate to you with internet links that they exist. Chubbles (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You understand the rules, so I shouldn't have to repeat them, especially considering you have been here for ten years. But you've backed yourself into a corner. You either want albums to remain unsourced, in which case they can be deleted by anyone at anytime, or you want to use an unreliable source, in which case they can be deleted by anyone at any time. But you continue to revert my edits using your unwritten rules. That's what causes conflict. The reason it hasn't caused more conflict is because you are working on a subject that few people are interested in. If you were to apply these methods elsewhere on Wikipedia, it would create a furor, and I don't think that word is an exaggeration. I tried to solve the problem but was met with too much conflict to make it worthwhile. Just keep in mind that what you are doing is outside the rules. There's no reason I or anyone else should put up with it.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cramming as much information into an article, about any subject, isn't necessarily helpful to the reader. What one person enjoys differs from what another enjoys. Against I must ask editors, IP or regulars, to distinguish between their interests and the interests of readers. It's a good lesson to learn.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that a single centralized place for discussion is best, so I will continue speaking with you on the Forman talk page. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Hahn page?
Vmavanti (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. Chubbles (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Luis Dubuc#Merge proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Luis Dubuc#Merge proposal. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Chubs, I'm writing you here rather than at the Talk pages of articles because many of the articles you created are orphans, and I would end up saying the same thing repeatedly at different places. Would you fix your orphans? You can find a list of orphans at Jazz Cleanup Listing. Thanks. I'm sure readers will appreciate it. Cheers, mate.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Liquid V

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Liquid V, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article merges

Hi, I notice that you have tagged a number of articles with {{mergeto}}, without either starting a discussion or tagging the other article concerned with {{mergefrom}}. Please see WP:MERGEINIT, particularly step 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd missed that that was prioritized over the tagging. I've mostly been trying to move articles unnecessarily tagged for notability out of that space, and some of the articles I've tagged may not need merging, but I don't want to end up just moving a mess from one place to another. Are these merge proposals ending up on another list that's now ballooning in size? Chubbles (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are being listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/June 2019, but some of the "Discuss" links are red (which is a dead giveaway that no discussion exists) and others go to the top of the talk page concerned instead of to a specific section. It's possible that the article alerts system is also not picking them up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm removing a few of the proposals, completing a couple, and starting discussions for others. Chubbles (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've similarly tagged on one page, and not started a discussion, in July too; so, they're at Category:Articles to be merged from July 2018. I've added a couple of templates so far, but there may well be more. If you could check the July for the small record labels you've tagged that would be great. Klbrain (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Andrus

If you had taken a closer look, you would have seen that the journal citation was not a "perfectly good reference". There was a red link error that showed up on the Cleanup Listing because the title of the article was missing. You can either revert the article to the way I had it or you can try to find the title of that journal reference. AllMusic already gives the birthplace, but you seem to have a bias against AllMusic. It also gives the full name, which you didn't use.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Not "perfectly good". Neither good nor perfect. Did you read what I wrote? Where's the title of the article? If you don't add it, the article will show up as an error on next week's Cleanup Listing.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see what I did? I added the title of the article. The edit summary also provides you with a PDF of the entire issue if you need to see the stigmata with your own eyes. Chubbles (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now you can figure out how to complete that discography.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lift (band)

The article Lift (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources for 8 years. Nothing to demonstrate WP:NBAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Orville1974 (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bruce Ditmas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Ditmas 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/Bruce Ditmas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Hydromania (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turley Richards

I disagree with your action to revert my edits to the page for Turley Richards. The source used for my additions is a valid source as it was published in book form by Mr. Richards. If you would like the citations and references re-formatted in APA style, I can certainly accomplish that, but this seems to me a trivial reason to delete an entire work. In text citations were used for the source, and the source was referenced by author, title, and year published.

With regard to the news story referenced, I believe the inclusion of this story to be detrimental to the subject, and in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines for posting sensitive information for pages devoted to biographical information of living persons. If you disagree, I will definitely escalate this issue to the board. I am curious who you are, and why you seem to be inordinately invested in keeping this sensationalistic, piece about an event from 17 years ago (that was never brought to court) on this person's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llhess16 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the BlindSighted source - I do not have an objection to cited content from this source being added, but the citation format is confusingly different from standard footnoting on this site. APA-style inline citations are generally discouraged in favor of footnotes; theoretically, you could use either one, but not a mix of the two on the same page, and there are already cited footnotes. The actual citation should also include the publisher name, and, since this is a book, page numbers for the citations.

As for the BLP issue, you are right to put scrutiny on this information; it is most certainly negative and about a living person, and so for WP:BLP must meet high bars for sourcing. However, the citation links to an investigative journalism report from WAVE 3, which, I believe, is an NBC affiliate television news station in Kentucky. I think that would meet our standards. If you disagree, you are welcome to seek outside opinions (perhaps at WP:RSN); I am happy to hear what others think on the matter. Chubbles (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UT

Thank you for the feedback. I will attempt to re-submit my edits using what you consider to be the proper formatting.

I do intend to seek outside opinion in this matter. I will cite several issues that are of concern to me. One will be the following, copied and pasted from the BLP guidelines page. Public figures Policy shortcuts WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:WELLKNOWN WP:BLPPUBLIC In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

As there do not exist multiple, reliable, published sources, this link should be removed. Also Mr. Richards' denial of the allegations has not been reported. These are only two of numerous violations to this policy.

Apparently the admins agreed with me. I will be adding back some additional historical content soon, and I thank you for (forcing me) to learn how to add superscripts and reference properly. I also hope you will help make sure the decision of the admins is upheld going forward should any parties attempt to add back the deleted information. Llhess16 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the page off my watchlist. Chubbles (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CDBaby cannot be used as a source

Retail sites cannot be used as sources, so you are again breaking the rules. I don't know how much longer you expect to get away with this, but it's better for everyone if you try to follow the rules. If you are going to edit jazz articles, why don't you add your name to Wikiproject Jazz rather than shadow my every edit? That, too, I believe, is against the rules and bad form. I look forward to your generous, thoughtful reply.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the album The Soul of Dennis Budimir from Dennis Budimir's discography section? Chubbles (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

READ WHAT I JUST WROTE!
Vmavanti (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not answer that question. I don't want to make assumptions. Chubbles (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell by the title of this post what my point was? Really? You ought to know after ten years on Wikipedia that retail sites cannot be used as sources. That's what you tried to do and that's why admin 78 replaced it with a different source. Is that understood?
Vmavanti (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, why did you remove it in the first place? Here. Chubbles (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make this any simpler, and I dislike playing word games with you. The only source you gave was CDBaby in your edit summary. CDBaby is an unreliable source. Capisce?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Here. This diff. I hadn't made any edits with CDBaby mentioned in the edit summary at that time. You removed The Soul of Dennis Budimir from the discography. Why? Chubbles (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what game you're playing this time but count me out. I have plenty to do. If you haven't already, restore the album and keep in mind what I have written.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; you are of course under no obligation to answer me, but the whole cascade of edits starts with that one. You removed the album from the discography, with no rationale - the edit summary just reads "del albums". I wondered why - I reverted because I was not told and couldn't figure out why. Chubbles (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As is so often the case, I remain baffled by your post. It contains assertions that are false, but I am at a loss as to how to get through to you. Reading is a lost art, someone once said.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which assertion is false? Chubbles (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Braceful

Why don't you do some work on this article? Real work, I mean, other than undoing mine. It's been sitting there for 10 years without necessary sources. You want to help, right? So help. Your edit is debatable but I haven't touched it. The matter has nothing to with WP:Worldview. In the future, please avoid massive reverts, which I have told you many times and which you continue to ignore. Chose a particular edit and discuss it. No more massive reverts.
Vmavanti (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"DJ Supreme" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DJ Supreme. Since you had some involvement with the DJ Supreme redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Laun chba ller 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names without articles

Don't add names to discographies which do not have articles. I have said that many times in my edit summaries. Do you want to help the jazz project? Then stop nipping at my heels and shadowing me and mothering me. I know what I'm doing. Yes, I make mistakes, but usually I know what I'm doing. There is a large cleanup listing at the jazz project page which offers all kind of challenges and problems to solve. Someone with your abilities could be of great benefit in solving some of those problems. I don't know why you choose to shadow me instead. That's a waste of your time and a waste of my time, and time is the most precious commodity of all.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add names to discographies which do not have articles? The discography is for McCaslin, and notability does not apply to content. The discography should be as complete as we can make it. This is insufficient justification for the reversion. Also, it's bad-faith to undo the edits of an experienced editor without any explanation (you left no note on any talk page and no edit summary before I inquired), regardless of how little respect you have for that editor. Chubbles (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of bad faith when you have repeatedly lied to me and deceived me and refused to talk to me. So let's cut that out right now. It's your opinion to make the discography "as complete as possible". It's a loaded term obviously, a loaded idea, because it's vague and subjective and has to be brought to earth and broken down. I don't share the "info-dump" mentality. I see web sites like that all the time. Readers hate that. It's not really what encyclopedias do. They give certain kinds of information in an organized way. You are not helping readers by adding albums for which there is no corresponding musician's article. Readers do not benefit from albums that have never been released in America, question marks next to labels and release dates, inconsistent formats, absent sources, conflicting source, incorrect info, biased info, promotional info, tables that are hard to edit, catalog numbers, matrix numbers, and sundry of interest to record collectors only. All of us have discussed this before, you and me and Eddie, and so accusing me of bad faith and accusing me of never explaining my opinion is simply wrong. What you usually accuse me of is saying too much. You see why I get annoyed? Keep it simple. Just keep it simple. Less is more. Good, quality data beats an excess of useless, half-baked data. I'm sure of that. Trust me. Take off your collector's hat and put on your editor's hat. There's a lot to do, and you have the ability to contribute so much in a v. positive way. I welcome your assistance on the cleanup listing. But you have a knack for being distracted by trivia and missing the forest for the trees.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You, me, Eddie, and the rest have established only that we will need to take each discography on a case-by-case basis. Most of the laundry list you just mentioned has no bearing on this article; there are no e.g. matrix numbers or tables on this page. The rub, as I understand it, is whether I am permitted to restore the fuller discography (added, then undone), which you claim you have removed because they are all non-notable entries. My counterclaim is that, since notability does not apply to content, the mere fact that McCaslin played on albums of musicians that do not have articles should not prevent them from being added to McCaslin's discography (which we are perfectly capable of moving to a separate discography page if it gets very long). Do you plan to revert me again if I did so? I do not wish to have an edit war, so if you are firm in your convictions, I can invite the usual suspects to contribute to this conversation. Chubbles (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment? I see a similar issue at James Emery (musician), so I am worried this conversation may recur. Chubbles (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call whomever you want. I'm not afraid to argue facts. Do you think they will be impressed by your running to the teacher and threatening me, as you have done so many times? I doubt it. Take your rage out on someone else. If you want to talk like adults, I'm willing to, but I won't play these games with you. I know you want things your way, but threats don't bolster your cause.
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. @DISEman:, @78.26:, @EddieHugh: Requesting your thoughts. Chubbles (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the dispute is about. If it's 'should a musician's discography include items that are led by a non-notable musician?', then my answer is 'yes', subject to the usual caveats of verifiability, etc. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I believe the dispute is about. It surfaced in relation to the Donny McCaslin article specifically, but there are a few other pages on my watchlist that had similar recent changes. Chubbles (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Eddie and I discussed this before. My understanding was that we discourage entering musicians who don't have articles. It might be WP policy or it might be a convention decided by the project, but I'm fairly sure we talked about it and Eddie agreed. You run the risk of every discography become even more unwieldy than it is already. You run the risk of IP editors adding more graffiti than they do already and increasing their bad habits. Chubs has been complaining about my "overhauling" discographies. Actually I've been trying to correct past mistakes, particularly mine when I was using AllMusic as a source and sometimes the data was wrong. After Eddie and I talked about it, I agreed with him that AllMusic presents some interesting problems. That matter has never been resolved and I don't expect it to be. Using AllMusic as a source caused nothing but problems for about five people (all of them British, I believe). So I changed. I started using Discogs.com (which is British) as a source, but without citations, though of course that is against the rules. Unsourced material always runs the risk of being changed or deleted, something Chubs has never come to terms with, but it's true. I'm using his favorite source now. The discographies I have revised are nearly always longer than they were before. Both facts ought to please him. But of course neither of them do. To Chubs I have been reckless. As I have said before, I do put thought into the edits I make. I have suggested to him on many occasions that there are other ways he can help the jazz project, if he is interested in helping. There might even be a barnstar in it for him. We need to think about priorities. The fact is, record collectors care more about discographies than the general reader for whom one writes an encyclopedia. The discography is not the most important part of the article, and too often it has been treated like it is—to the detriment of the project and Wikipedia.
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would prefer that this be brought to a larger audience, perhaps at WP:MUSIC or WP:DISCOGRAPHY. The relevant policies I can think of are WP:V, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRESERVE, WP:PROVEIT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is up to the community at large to decide how much discographical detail should be in the article, but probably it is merely the two of you who are paying attention, and I don't want to arbitrate between you because 1)I don't think you are willing to accept it and 2)I have strong enough opinions about discographical matters myself. My general thoughts are that if the information is verifiable and adds to the understanding of the topic, it should be included. The album or main artist included in the discography does NOT need to be notable to be included. That said, some discographies are going to difficult to manage if they are all-inclusive, and I have no idea how to handle "download" "published" material, we've been over catalog numbers previously, but if there's just a digital file, I don't know how you can verify that. 78rpm records are so much easier!

. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think often the material added is not necessary. That's one point. I don't edit arbitrarily. Now here is a v. important point I would like the three of you to read and consider carefully. Keep in mind IP editors who neither know nor follow the rules. Nearly every word in Wikipedia can get redlinked. That means every word can become an article. Let's narrow it down. Every name in an article or added to it can be redlinked. Therefore every name in an article can be turned into an article. Let's narrow it down. Every name in a discography can be redlinked. Therefore every name in discography can become an article. Let's narrow it down. Every album...every label...got it? So what, right? You get lots of red links, so what? Clutter aside, it's a big deal because often those red links never become articles. Or they become articles that never get worked on. I have ample proof for that. Or they become articles that turn out not to be notable. I have ample proof for that, too. Then they have to go through the nearly impossible task of being deleted, a process that some people have compared to murder—otherwise, why do they talk about "saving" articles and "resurrecting" articles? Shouldn't literal language be used more often an encyclopedia than figurative language? Should we all be more literal? So...what happens? You end up with a lot of junk articles that never get fixed. That wastes the time of good editors who could have spent their time in better ways. Instead, they have become janitors. All you have done is encourage the unhealthy impulsivity of creating articles while simultaneously discouraging the real work of Wikipedia: thinking, researching, writing, editing, discussing, analyzing, judging. How can that possibly be a good thing? I have read complaints about "not enough editors". That's dumb. It's addressing the problem upside down. Why not reduce the amount of work? Then you wouldn't need more editors. Oh, no, not that. That would mean recognizing limits. That's no fun! Too many people want to indulge themselves. They want Wikipedia to be impossibly infinitely open-ended—with no limits, or very few (theirs, usually), and no criteria for judging anything. Let's stay on Earth. Why go to the moon and Mars when everything we need is right here? Now that's figurative language used appropriately.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, we have been excluding albums that exist only as digital files. The deaths of CDs and vinyl have been exaggerated. Overwhelmingly, albums are still released in one or both formats. We have to draw the line somewhere. We have to set limits. Or no work will ever get done. It is irresponsible for experienced editors to believe all they have to do is slap a template on something and their work is done. It is irresponsible, fairy-tale thinking to assume someone down the road will clean up our messes.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

78/Eddie, I'm fine with moving this discussion to a wider venue if you think it will lead to a clearer consensus on actual practice. As for the McCaslin discography specifically, I don't see any problems in this version of it (my reverted version) in terms of excessive redlinking (there are no redlinks in the discography), clutter (it's well-organized and can easily be farmed out to a separate discography page, as is now common, if it gets longer), or indiscriminateness (McCaslin's presence as a sideman is a reasonable and bounded criterion for inclusion). I do not feel as if this were a waste of my time - it's only a waste of my time if it gets reverted and is never restored, so I want to minimize the number of scenarios under which that is likely to happen. Chubbles (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not really seeing any good reason advanced to keep the content out of the McCaslin article, so unless there are further comments, I plan to restore it. I may also take a look at other articles that have been treated similarly. Chubbles (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always give you reasons. Good ones. You rarely address them. You haven't here either. For one thing, the problem isn't redlinks per se. Yes, a sea of red is blinding. But that's only part of it. Red links become articles, articles which are not notable and difficult to remove. That means a waste of everyone's team, not just yours or mine. Your well being isn't my first priority. Dig? It's hairsplitting to say "notability isn't a factor when creating discographies". Because it does matter.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning to add any red links to the page; my reverted version did not add any red links. Chubbles (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point again. You didn't read what I wrote. This is what I said in that long paragraph above: Any word (more or less) in the article can be become an article. Just because you don't redlink names doesn't mean someone else will. I see IP editors do this all the time. They enter names and albums. How am I to know whether that info is accurate? It's not sourced, so I can't check their source. I can check discogs.com, but often the IP's info isn't there. I'm not going to go on a wild choose chase for every single album that pops into an IP editor's head. That's whack a mole. If we establish a rule to avoid entering names without articles, then we have a reason to discourage IP graffiti. That's better for everyone, not just you or me.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if I restored the fuller discography, you would be justified in reverting because...someone might redlink the names some day? Chubbles (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I've been removing names of musicians who don't have articles and I will continue to do so. Save everyone time by working on something that actually needs to be done. Cheers, mate, as they say in your neck of the woods.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then your edits most certainly deserve more scrutiny than editors are currently giving them, because that is not constructive. As I have time, I will look for edits that are not constructive and change them or mark them for discussion. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be disrupting my edits, which you have been trying to get away with for four years—even after I have compromised and accommodated you many times. I have changed my behavior. What about you? You do not need to shadow me as you've been doing. Your excuse—"your edits deserve more scrutiny"—is not merely weak but loathsome. A new low. There is no proof that I am damaging articles. There is a lot of proof where I have improved them. I have a done a lot of work. ALL of the articles I have worked on I have improved. I resent the implication that I need to be monitored because I am harming articles. That is b.s., and you know it. Let's stop that kind of thing, OK? I suggest you work on something other than jazz discographies. It's bad for Wikipedia when people are interested in one v. narrow topic. I am losing patience with your melodrama and your persistent flouting of rules, common sense, and decency.
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. Eddie, 78 - if you think there is a better venue for this discussion to continue, please let us know. Chubbles (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bouché

I like the way you refactored the Bouché page. I'll mention that the other thing that struck me as a little strange about having it on the prior page (in addition to the surname vs term thing) is that bouché isn't mentioned on the hand-stopping page. Maybe it would make sense to add a mention there? A cursory search made it look like it'd be easy to back up with a reference. Just a suggestion! In another direction, I edited boldly and added a hatnote with bouche. (I'm not positive it belongs there, but it seems like something that could cause some confusion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chubbles (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George FitzGerald

Hi **** We notice you rejected the changes to the George FitzGerald wikipedia page, and wanted to reach out and ask what your particular issues were?

“suspect COI (conflict of interest) edit incorporating flowery quotes and removing a whole bunch of sourced information”

We changed your original entry, as it was factually incorrect in a number of places, and is lacking in a lot of detail. You’ve since made some changes to the facts, but it is still short entry without much depth.

With the exception of 2x quote (which are direct quotes from one of of the worlds major newspapers, and one of electronic musics most respected outlets) - there was no reason to reject anything else. It is all fact, not opinion.

We would like to re-submit the entry we uploaded so as to provide more information for people reading - what would you like to see taken out in order to not reject it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthArtistManagement (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eddie Hubble

The article Eddie Hubble has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはChubblesたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]