This is an archive of past discussions about User:Netherzone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can you please not alert me of a PROD or article deletion again, I barely visit this site nowadays let alone have time to waste on trying to save articles. Thankyou.† Encyclopædius17:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Encyclopædius: I'm not sure what article you are referring to. I do not recall sending you an alert. Please advise, and thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Oh, and by the way I am not a "deletionist", if you check my AfD stats you will find that there is balance in my !votes throughout the years. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Twas a few months back. Don't worry, you're not one of the usual culprits (deletionists), but just letting you know. Cheers.† Encyclopædius17:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Your "genre changes" message to me
Hello, and thanks for your message concerning my recent edits. I've never used this "talk page", so I hope I'm doing it correctly and you're seeing this.
I dont know which of my edits you were referring to in your message. I've done two "genre corrections" over the past few months.
You mentioned that I did so without discussing the proposed changes on articles' Talk Pages. I did not know that was required.
But more importantly, you said I changed them without seeking consensus or adding a reliable source. I must say that after listening to rock music for that past 40 years, and being heavily immersed in all of its sub genres (rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock, classic rock, heavy metal, glam metal, pop metal, power metal, progressive rock, progressive metal, death metal, thrash metal, etc...) I am very familiar with what genres bands fall into. That is why I took the liberty of making the change. I dont know just which article you were messaging me about, but there was a recent one where a certain band was classified into a genre that they were ANYTHING BUT! I felt it was my duty as a big fan of the band (I'm a very big fan of both bands who's Wiki pages I recently edited) to make the correction.
Could you please tell me more? I don't know if you can tell who this is coming from because I havent yet created an account, but I hope you can, based on my IP like before, so you can reply. The 4 tildes didnt do anything.
Hope to hear from you soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.49.170 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you receive this, but I'm not sure you will receive a ping because you don't have an account. If I remember, I'll give you a heads up to check here for my reply, or I'll copy it to your talk page. Firstly, thank you for your thoughtful message, I appreciate it. I saw your genre changes after you added Def Leppard as being influenced by T.Rex (which was not an issue at all. I got curious so I looked at your edit history and saw the genre changes.) Changing genres is sort of big deal to some editors, which is why the Twinkle tool has a template for this (more on Twinkle another time). I trust that you know what you are talking about, however, the way things work on Wikipedia, whenever you make a change that could potentially be controvertial (meaning someone may get bent out of shape about it, or it might go against policy or guidelines) it's recommended you discuss it first on the article's talk page (there's a tab near the top of the article window for Talk.) That way you can reach out to any page watchers who might want to discuss the matter. It could be as simple as posting, "Hey does anyone mind if I change the genre from Garage Punk to Skate Punk?" This is how consensus works on Wikipedia. Other editors may agree with you or challenge you (or ignore you) so if there's no communication for a couple weeks, it's usually fine to make a potentially controversial change. See WP:Consensus for more information. If you have trouble using an article talk page, let me know and I'll try to help, or you can always reach out to the Help Desk WP:Help desk or at the TeaHouse WP:Teahouse. Because we are all volunteers, it can sometimes take a day or two to get a question answered, so it's a good idea to bookmark the page (or if you register a user account, you can add it to your "watch list." Secondly, if you want to register but can figure out how, go to the teahouse or help. There are a lot of advantages to having an account in addition to the watchlist feature. There are several tools that are useful, and communications in general run more smoothly. I've also found that I "met" a lot of really interesting people here that I've learned a lot from. Well, that's all for now. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes I did receive it! I came to look something up and got the same little yellow/orange banner as the other day, telling me that you had a message for me. Hopefully you're seeing this - I didnt see a way to continue or reply to the "thread" like other forums, email, texting, etc have. So, I just clicked "edit" at the beginning of the whole topic hoping you get a notification that I've added to it. I love Wikipedia and use it frequently, but I do find parts of it very counter intuitive and not always user friendly, and I'm a computer tech for a living! The editing of articles is easy, but other areas not so much.
The other day after your first message, I took a few minutes to look at Talk pages of a couple of articles, to familiarize myself. I did notice right away that many comments from people who may want to make a change, went un-answered. I wondered if the reason I didnt see any answers was because I dont actually have an account. Then I decided I was likely wrong about that. Now after your message today, I see that you've explained that sometimes there will be no answer, and if after some time, it may mean there's just no objections.
I plan on creating an account soon, I just need to put some thought into what user name I'll use. I can be very un-creative about that kind of thing sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.49.170 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It took me a while to get the idiosyncracies of Wikipedia also. But now it feels pretty intuitive, and usually I know where to look to get information. I can't remember if I mentioned this on your talk page or not, but if you change something that could be controversial, but add a reliable source that backs up the change, it is seldom questioned. Also, there is a tradition called Bold, Revert, Discuss, see WP:BRD for more info. It means, be bold in editing (like you were when you changed the genre), Revert - which is the same as Undo or Rollback - which is what I could have done (but decided to contact you instead), and Discuss, meaning if the two parties don't agree then talk thru it. That one little rule, BRD, keeps things running fairly smoothy here, (altho there is a fair share of drama too). All in all, it is a wonderful, international community.
There's some good info on the links below. You probably already know about them but if not, thought I'd share.
Thanks for uploading File:Roosevelt Red Ware.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello @J Milburn:, as with the image above (Julian Martinex digging for clay), I have modified the summary on the image page with my Fair Use rationalle. It should pass now. Thank you for the heads up! Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying these things. What is stopping someone else from taking a photograph of pottery of this sort? Presumably, there will be pottery like this on display in museums and galleries? Indeed, there are lots of free images in our article on Roosevelt Red Ware (some of which you use in the article). These may not be photos that are as good, but that's the compromise that we make for being a free-content encyclopedia. (Again -- I hope you can appreciate that my concern here is solely with non-free content!) Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
J Milburn, Duh, why did I not think to use one of those images!? Thank you, thank you, for your help, I really do appreciate it. (Also, I left another message above for you re: the Julian Martinez photo.) Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Dextra Nampeyo (Hopi potter) sherd pot, modern era, Crocker Art Museum.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dextra Nampeyo (Hopi potter) sherd pot, modern era, Crocker Art Museum.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
J Milburn, OK to delete this file, I swapped it out with a non-contemporary image of a historical Hopi pot. Please see the messages I left for the other two files, which I strongly believe are fair use. I also modified their summaries to reflect why they meet fair use criteria. Thank you, and hope you have a good 2021. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries, @J Milburn:, you are keeping up the quality of the encyclopedia! I've left you messages below regarding each of the other two files. If there continues to be a problem with either of them, just let me know. Netherzone (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Alcario Tafoya of Santa Clara Pueblo digging clay.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Alcario Tafoya of Santa Clara Pueblo digging clay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Netherzone: Hi, I'm glad you appreciate my clean editing skills as that was my goal. However, please try to view any AfD in a neutral manner independent from the person who made the nomination. Even if you think I've nominated an article before (I haven't) that shouldn't be relevant. However, I am concerned by the inflated claims and aggressive citation edits made by the other editor that you have encouraged. For example, citing books that have already been properly cited just to add multiple new references to the bottom seems overly ambitious and inappropriate. I am also concerned by the misplaced enthusiasm for a subject who seems to have made good achievements but has not risen to the position of a WP encyclopedic entry. That editor includes unnecessary comments in edits, makes unsupported claims to sway arguments and uses citations that do always support statements. He or she will need a strong mentor to follow his growth. I nominate you! --Monteboat (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Monteboat, This is a confusing message, and I certainly do not appreciate these harsh allegations. Please do not post here again with such a tone. I have the right to change my !vote from "delete" to 'keep" as the article was vastly improved by another editor since the nomination. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
AFD participation request
As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110Lets wrestle!15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Julian Martinez digging clay for pottery, San Ildefonso Pueblo, New Mexico, 1941.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Julian Martinez digging clay for pottery, San Ildefonso Pueblo, New Mexico, 1941.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
J Milburn, Thank you for your notices on the images I uploaded. This file in particular is irreplaceable. I've searched for days for an older image, this one is 70 years old, black and white, a historical image. The person depicted is no longer alive, and likely the photographer is no longer alive, it has no commercial value whatsoever. It is impossible for someone else to shoot a similar image because the man in the photograph, who is very important in the Pueblo pottery movement has been dead for many years. It is impossible for someone else to make a similar photograph at San Ildefonso Pueblo that is noted for Pueblo pottery, because the clay digging sites themselves on Pueblo lands are restricted, and not open to the public. I have modified the file summary to reflect that. I do not really care if the other two files are deleted, however I strongly believe they fall into "Fair use" criteria, but this one should not be deleted. It is irreproduceable, historical, and 70 years old. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for this clarification. I hear what you say about irreplaceability, and you do make a good case, but we then get to the matter of non-free content criterion 8. Put simply, while we may not be able to create another photo of this person (or of another person digging in the same place), we need to ask whether we can really understand the article without this image. MY guess is that we can -- it's not obvious why readers need to see a photo of this person digging in this place to understand the topic of Pueblo pottery. The article has lots of great photos that are (apparently -- I've not looked into it in detail!) freely licensed, but I'm concerned about a few non-free images sneaking in. It'd surely be best if we could avoid any non-free images. If you are convinced that this particular image meets the NFCC and the article can't do without it, then perhaps the best thing for us to do would be for me to submit it to files for deletion so that we can have a broader community discussion about it. (PS: I think this is a really great topic to work on, and I really hope that my concerns about non-free content don't discourage you from continuing to work on the article and related articles!) Josh Milburn (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, J Milburn I've worked on the Purpose section of the image Summary to address Criteria #8. If you find the time, please do let me know if it meets the guidelines. Thank you for your kind words about the article. It's been nominated for DYK and I don't want anything to interfere with that process going smoothly! Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I'm still not really convinced. The article doesn't actually contain any discussion of the gathering of clay; only that it is "locally dug". I think the way forward might be for me to nominate the article at files for deletion and invite some wider input -- I can put forward my worries in the nomination statement, you can explain why you think the image meets the criteria, and then others can contribute. Before I do that, though, can I just bring up File:Ancestral Puebloan Tusayan corrugated gray ware pottery.jpg? Again, I'm worried about replaceability. You mention that you could not find a fair use (I assume you mean "free use") image of that pot, but what the criteria require irreplaceability -- what's to stop someone photographing a pot of this type and releasing it under a free license? If this was a one-of-a-kind pot that has now been destroyed (and was discussed at length in the article) then maybe -- but it's not clear that this is the case. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your message, sorry to hear you are not convinced, J Milburn. The article is not complete yet, I only created it on December 23, a little more than a week ago, and I'm working as fast as I can! I have not gotten up to Modern & Contemporary pueblo pottery yet which is where I intend to address the Martinez family of 5 generations of San Ildefonso Pueblo potters and the Tafoya family of 7 generations of Santa Clara Pueblo potters, and how they spearheaded the Pueblo pottery revival movement starting in the 1920s. That section will include the importance of modern and contemporary Pueblo potters following the traditions of digging and using only local clay dug from their indigenous lands, and how this tradition is key to the cultural beliefs of the Pueblo people. It's a Native American "thing" I suppose, and it probably won't make sense to encyclopedia readers from Europe and other English speaking people around the globe anyways. But it IS important to this type of work from an Indigenous standpoint. If that is too obtuse or irrelevant to our readers and researchers, so be it, go ahead and delete it. I currently do not know anyone at San Ildefonso Pueblo to ask to make a photograph, and the site is restricted (and I live 1500 miles away, so could not go to the tribal office to ask if I could do so myself with a guide.) In the meantime, I'll look through the books I own to see if I can find an image taken at an even earlier time. I thought 70 years was the cut-off date for copyright in the US, but I guess the laws change frequently (?), and I don't stay up to date with them. If it must be deleted, so be it.
As to the early Pueblo II era corrugated piece, I could only find images that were illustrations, or pottery sherds, not an intact pot. Because these were made a very long time ago, AD 500 and 1300, and a lot of looting occurred by archaeologists and others in the late 19th and early 20th C. there are very few intact examples. I guess the problem is that the photo was likely made by the museum rather than shot by the artist who made the pot (obviously no cameras back then)? I ask because I'm wondering if it's the way I am filling out the forms that is incorrect. Again, if it must be deleted, then do so, however to my mind, the images improved the quality of the article by visually explaining the nuances between the eras, types, traditions and historical innovations of Pueblo pottery. Lastly, I mean no harm whatsoever in uploading them, I simply want to create a wonderful article on a subject that is deserving of an indepth analysis here for others to read and learn from. All the best, Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
EUREKA! @J Milburn: I've looked through my books, and on page 121 of the book, The Living Tradition of Maria Martinez by Susan Peterson the same image, and two others are pictured, the caption clearly says: "Digging clay, early 1920s" which means the photograph copyright has expired. I just made a cell phone photo an uploaded it to Commons, see below for image.Julian Martinez digging clay at San Ildefonso Pueblo, New Mexico in the early 1920s, photographer unknown The 1940 date of the version I uploaded before must be the date the museum acquired a copy of the photograph, not the date it was created. Please confirm that it now satisfies all criteria, if that is the case. You may delete the older version, or instruct me as to whether I should modify the info on that file (since it is a better print.) And please forgive me for pinging you so many times, I'm very sorry if I have been a nusiance! Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Netherzone: I don't want to say for certain what is and is not PD, but if you think you have a good claim that the image is PD, that would of course be an ideal solution. Please feel free to update the image description with the details you have uncovered and remove the deletion notice. I think my advice to you would be to stick to public domain/"free" images as far as possible. My hope is that you would like to take this article to good article candidates or featured article candidates, and puzzles about non-free content use can sink nominations there! You ask: "I guess the problem is that the photo was likely made by the museum rather than shot by the artist who made the pot (obviously no cameras back then)? I ask because I'm wondering if it's the way I am filling out the forms that is incorrect." My response is basically this: if the pot's public domain, that's great, but any photograph of the pot is still going to belong to the person who took it. So if you're taking images off museum websites, you're (probably) taking non-free images -- they belong to the museum. And if these items are in museums, that almost certainly means that the images are "replaceable" -- as someone could visit the museum and photograph the pot there. I'm going to stop bothering you about these images now -- I appreciate the hard work you've put in to sorting out the issues I have identified, and I appreciate your willingness to remove images where necessary. But I don't want to take more time away from actually working on the article! If you do manage to "finish" the article and nominate it at GAC, FAC, or PR, please do feel free to message me -- time permitting, I'd love to have a proper read through of the article. I think I saw some Pueblo pottery at the Gardiner Museum in Toronto, which is really worth a visit if you're ever in that part of the world! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Santa Fe Plaza
Netherzone - "Santa Fe Plaza" -- please see my comments under my talk page for VT440genoa. I can copy them here if that would be easier. My talk page discussion with KidAd, again, gives each of our points of view. I think the new additions helps the reader understand the physical evolution of this nationally significant public space. VT440genoa (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
VT440genoa, Please use the article talk page, it is located here: Talk:Santa Fe Plaza to discuss proposed edits. I agreed with KidAd's comments that much, but not all, of the content seemed promotional in a way that suggests it is intended to promote tourism or travel. While I agree with you that it's interesting to include some historical facts, the way it was presented was not entirely encyclopedic in tone. Some of the sourcing was weak, please use reliable sources WP:RS and also see WP:CITE.
As you are getting used to the way things work here on Wikipedia in relation to consensus and other policies and guidelines, I suggest that you use to the talk page of the article so that multiple editors can weigh in, and you don't risk getting blocked for edit warring. There are several tutorials you can take (ask if you need help finding them). Also, please do read the policy links KidAd recommended, and also those I recommended on the Soldiers' Monument (Santa Fe, New Mexico) talk page. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
netherzone - Thanks, as always, for your level-headed comments. What are the steps for arbitration? I may have to finally disagree with KiddAd re the manner of his comments, citing guidelines rather than giving helpful or substantial assistance on topic content, details, or value. I will send him another note, and follow your suggestions to offer on the talk page the new material so he can offer his suggestions there. By the way, I have a Ph.D. in history. So, that is my focus when editing or adding new material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VT440genoa (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration? It is perplexing why you would consider that in relation to a good faith editor such as KidAd who is trying to help maintain encyclopedia standards. But the choice is yours. You can ask at the TeaHouse or Helpdesk WP:TEAHOUSEWP:HELPDESK. I don't think I can help you further other than to encourage you to use article talk pages. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Netherzone, thanks again for your comments and suggestions. I'll follow your suggestion and put material up on the Santa Fe Plaza talk page. And thanks for the links to the Teahouse and Helpdesk. kidAd, I have found too many of your comments not within the WP guidelines for civility. VT440genoa (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are familiar with WP:CIVIL, you may have read the line other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. You cannot improve without internalizing constructive criticism. KidAdtalk23:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not interested in persuing this dialog on my personal talk page. Please take it to the respective article talk pages. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I think the AfD will be withdrawn, the nominator has suggested this themself. My guess is that the few existing works of this artist are all in museum collections. It's fun to connect the dots. On a different note, I want to commend you for your patience with the Tomos Roberts article - I think that is solely the most promotional art article I've ever seen. Netherzone (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ha! Re: Tomos Roberts, I agree. It should probably go to AfD as it is borderline. That was some kind of ultra-layered baloney sandwich huh? In any case, I think it is you who should be commended for all the good work you do here, as Bearian noted above. Possibly (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Netherzone... You're always very polite and considerate in corresponding with others, so I'll assume good faith here. I didn't intend anything to be promotional in nature. I simply wanted to be as thorough as possible and, well, when I commit myself to something, I typically only have one gear. For better or worse, I'm also a perfectionist. Being new to Wikipedia, it hasn't always been without issue, but I continue to learn and my intentions have always been genuine. Rather than belittling my attempts (more or less), you should, perhaps, encourage folks like me - individuals who are willing to dedicate much time and energy (to editing), who are able to compose well in English (and French) and who could ultimately benefit the Wikipedia community.
Cheers,
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC))
Ryancoke2020, Hello and good to hear from you. Please forgive me if my wording sounded belittling, that was not the best choice of words on my part. I'm glad you reached out, and I'll respond in a longer message soon. Your thoroughness is remarkable. What made the article sound promotional was contextual. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. From my way of thinking, you wrote a really great piece for a different venue. A more concise tone and format may work better. PS the notability tag is no big deal, it gives other editors a chance to have a look at the article and discuss. Things don't happen on clock time here since volunteers are from all over the globe. Netherzone (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Netherzone... Thank you, kindly, for reaching out. I do appreciate the encouraging words - truly! Perhaps 'belittling' was too strong of a characterization. I just worked really hard to research all that information and to write as much as I did, but I do understand where I missed the boat. I really should have started MUCH smaller and incrementally developed upon what was submitted. I swung for the fences on my first try... LOL! Again, thank you for your kindness and guidance. It provides encouragement during these, assuredly, difficult times!
Cheers,
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC))
I'd like some feedback whether the cleanup in the last few months has addressed your concerns. If so, it's a simple matter of removing the template, which you can do or I can do if you think it's an acceptable shape now. If it is still problematic, do you have suggestions on specific areas requiring attention?--S Philbrick(Talk)18:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, hello and thanks for reaching out. There was a COIN discussion at [[1]] regarding the many COI articles that Greghenderson2006 created about his family members. It took a lot of work by myself and the editors pinged above, and others to clean things up.
The good news is that Greghenderson2006 changed his editing habits, and has gone on to create numerous interesting non-COI articles, mostly on historical boats.
I think it's fine to remove the maintenance tag on the article, but I think it would be a good idea to keep the declaration on the article talk page. Netherzone (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I gave the article another look and I have removed contents not referenced, as well as things of questionable relevance. Please have a look. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, I looked at their recent edit history, and you are right that they have gone back to editing the COI articles, and also noticed that some of the talk pages have been archived, so the former discussions are no longer readily available. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to archive these talk pages. What do you think, Possibly, Graywalls, Melcous? Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, article talk pages are not his user talk page (which the owner is basically free to archive, delete, as they please). Why is he administering the archiving of a talk page of an article on which he has a COI? The timing is also very interesting. The talk page wasn't so full that it was uncomfortable to navigate, but he archived it right before making the request to have the COI tag removed which tends to put away the historical discussion about the pattern of COI behaviors out of sight of the editor coming by to evaluate the edit request. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, I agree that he should not oversee the archiving of these talk pages, nor are they so long that they needed archiving in the first place (and some of the discussions and edit requests were still open.) Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the COI editor should not be archiving the talk page of affected articles, nor editing those articles directly - and that there was no need for the talk pages to be archived at all. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls and Netherzone: Not sure why they will not leave the article, and its talk page, alone. I thought that was clear from the last discussion. Does anyone remember the username of the admin who said "not this time, but maybe next time" when asked to pBlock Henderson? Also, I restored the COI tag as there is obviously COI editing going on. Possibly (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Reading through the article, it's his dad that's in the biography encyclopedia, but it doesn't seem like there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. What I can see of the sources suggests they're rather trivial. I'm thinking of AfDing but perhaps I've missed something in the checking before nomination. Do you see signs of notability? I see you edited this one too. Graywalls (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, Hi, I just noticed this message. I happen to agree with you that they don't seem to meet GNG. I just re-read the article and can't figure out what he actually did that is notable. Netherzone (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the wikilink to the redirect in that section (and the existence of the redirect at all) is to indicate Baillie's significance (her WP:ONEVENT role in the Ross/Brand controversy). Without the wikilink, there would be little point in naming the vocalist of the Poussez Posse - few people respond to the name "Georgina Baillie" but say to them "Oh you remember, Andrew Sachs's granddaughter from that whole fuss with Johnathan Ross and Russell Brand in 2008," then a refrigerator light pops on in most peoples' heads. Switching that mental lightbulb on is the communicative purpose of placing that wikilink.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Romomusicfan, Hi good to hear from you, how are you doing during these pandemic times?
We disagree about the Georgina Baillie link in the Women in punk rock article. The subject of Women in punk rock is just that, contributions women have made to the punk rock genre. The article is focused on music.
The navigational wikilink redirect from the name Georgina Baillie to the Russell Brand Show prank article is completely trivial to the subject of this (WiPR) article and has nothing whatsoever to do with her music.
Why don’t you WP:WTAF - write the article (on her) first? If she is not notable enough to be able to sustain her own article, the navigational wikilink redirect should not be there unless it points to her musicianship, band, acting, or creative accomplishments as an artist. To have it point to the equivalent of tabloid fodder is just silly, gossipy and a real stretch. It lowers the credibility of the Women in punk rock article. Wikipedia is not a repository of links.
If the wikilink pointed to a (new) article about her that would be great, and would make sense and would be relevant to have her name linked. If she is not notable enough for her own article, then it does her a disservice to link her to a scandal rather than to her music or acting. We certainly are not doing her any favors by having a link in an article about women’s music to her grandfather being punked by Brand. As a living person I’m sure she’d much rather be known for her work in the performing arts rather than an abusive stunt by Brand. Why reopen that wound and put it on display in the WiPR article? See WP:NOTSCANDALNetherzone (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I have every respect for your concern over the dignity of Baillie and - individually and collectively - the various female musicians on the WIPR page, but the redirect for Baillie is the correct Wikipedia procedure for persons covered under WP:ONEEVENT. A redirect Wikilink to the Saschsgate page is certainly more compliant with Wikipedia policies than, say, putting "Her Out Of That Brand/Ross Business" next to GB's name as a means of indicating her significance to the reader.
A couple of related points of interest -
(1) Regarding the possibility of a Wikipedia article on Georgina Baillie - there were attempts in 2008 at the time of "Sachsgate" to create a page on her relating to her previous burlesque career and there has been a discussion page thread at [3] running for nine years on the prospects of her getting a Wikipedia article of her own.
(2) It's worth considering that with both Poussez Posse's most noted song during its own lifetime "Rubber Medusa" and Baillie's collaboration with Adam Ant "Gun In Your Pocket" (B-side of his "Cool Zombie" single), the subject matter of both songs is "Sachsgate" so it's not exactly something she likes to play it down, least of all in her music career. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
If anything, Georgina Baillie's name should redirect to the Poussez Posse article or Adam Ant. However because The Featherz already has a link to the main page, we do not need to have Bailllie's name linked at all. Since she is not notable as per the efforts you cite above (that discussion is 10 years old, has anything changed since then?) her name should be left unwikilinked, or linked to another music article, because......WIPR is an article about women's contributions to music. Netherzone (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, Sachsgate was harmful to Baillie, here is what she had to say about the incident to the Guardian, a reliable source: [4]
"It was unbelievably horrible," she says. "It was like walking around naked; it was so exposing, so unfair."
"It really messed up my relationship with them (her grandparents) because who wants their grandparents to know who they sleep with?
“He (her grandfather) felt hurt at being dragged into such a sordid tale; she felt ashamed of her part in it. They didn't meet, or speak, for a long time. "I felt like I had a massive gap in my life," says Georgina. "I hate making anyone miserable or unhappy. And even though this wasn't my fault, I felt guilty about it."
Here's what Adam Ant had to say: "Georgie had gone through real hell over this and because of it she'd missed out on three years of her grandfather's love."
This woman was dragged through the coals by a mean and abusive prank by Brand and tabloid coverage thereof. I feel very strongly that the WIPR article should not spread more harm to this woman, to do so is unkind and unnecessary. Netherzone (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Well if you want to challenge the use of the Sachsgate page as the target for the Georgina Baillie redirect, feel free, but that seems to be the consensus among Wikipedia editors as to where her Redirect should point unless/until someday she achieves independent wiki-notability. (I myself was not involved in said discussions.) Alternatively you could try writing her a page. Here is a previous attempt by someone. Romomusicfan (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I do hear you Netherzone, but there is a wider consensus than myself about the redirect target. See for example [5]
I think you are making this overly complicated, and are not hearing me. What I am saying: Georgina Baillie's name should not be linked in the Women in punk rock article unless the wikilink points to her work as a musican. It does not, therefore I removed the link. There is nothing wrong with having her name unlinked. The article is already too overlinked as it is. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Well OK, but you may find other editors coming along at a later date going "Who is this Georgina Baillie then, and why is she important enough to get mentioned?" And if they look her up and find out who - or if they happen to know already - they may just simply reinstate the Wikilink to the redirect.Romomusicfan (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Romomusicfan, sigh, are you being sincere or sarcastic? The reason I ask is that it does not give me a lot of confidence since you have used so many IPs to edit in the past, at least ten. Nevertheless I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not here to create unnecessary drama as we both can do without that. Netherzone (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Asking for an opinion from the person who originally created the redirect.
It was 100 years ago. I didn't "create the redirect". What I did was move an article that someone created "about her" to being an article about Brandt and his antics. If she was notable for her music and art (and I've no clue about that) then a biography on her might be appropriate - but if the notability is really Brant's misbehaviour that should not justify an article on the hapless victim. Beyond that, I'm not active here anymore to know what the current standards are. But, if in doubt, do no harm. Associating a victim with the abuse should only be done where it is clearly justified. If in doubt, don't. (I'm so inactive, I don't even know how to sign this anymore)
Thanks Scott MacDonald, I think the attempts to create a page were done some time in the late Noughties mainly on account of her work in burlesque (which clearly didn't pass the notability threshold).
The issue is whether it is appropriate (as has been done by various editors on quite a fair number of articles where she is mentioned for whatever reason) to wikilink to the redirect as a shorthand to the reader to explain who this Georgina Baillie person is and why she is significant enough to warrant a mention. To be fair, the "Sachsgate" article does contain a specific section on her music and particularly on some of her better known specific works - Rubber Medusa, Gun In Your Pocket - which relate to the whole episode.
I'm not pushing any more for the reinstatement of the link on the actual Women in Punk Rock article but I would still defend its wider use on Wikipedia of which, as I said, there is plenty. 01:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Scott MacDonald thank you for your kind response. I agree that when in doubt, do no harm; and that it is not necessary to revictimize someone who has been abused. Pinging Romomusicfan so they understand your take on it. Cheers, Netherzone (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Very impressive
All the biographies you have created is very impressive. I added some nationality info to the lead sentence of some of them. Thank you for all of your contributions to the project! --Malerooster (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, I appreciate it. I wanted to mention that if the person is an enrolled member of, or is recognized in reliable sources as Native American or First Nations in a federally recognized tribe/nation, I always try to mention that as their nationality before using American or Canadian. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Mary Lum
Hi Netherzone, does the subject have dual nationality and is there a source for that or is this the subject's ethnicity? I started a section on the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Malerooster, hello again, may I ask why you are following me around? No offense, but it's a little creepy. Re: the Michi Itami article that you tagged questioning the fact that she is Japanese American. Yes, she is indeed Japanese American - she and her parents were in a Japanese internment camp during WWII. Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, I just happen to look at some of the article's you created and saw that you hadn't added the subject's nationality to the lead sentence so I started to add that per MOSBIO. Please see MOS:Ethnicity specifically Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Does this make sense? --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Malerooster, not really, it doesn't make sense. Out of the 41,258,353 editors on Wikipedia, how is it that you singled out my articles? With all due respect, are you on a mission to enforce MOS:Ethnicity on all biographies? Have you edited under a different username and I just don't recognize you? Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please don't this personally, I do try to improve biography articles with an eye towards the lead sentence and nationality if it is clear cut. You will notice I have not edited any native American bios or most people if they were not born in the United States. Did you read the link I posted about ethnicity? The biographies notice board Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is also a good place to discuss this. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native Americans and hot springs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
California genocide "did not appear constructive" argument for removal
Ref: California genocide "did not appear constructive"
Hi Netherzone!
The original text was:
"Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for native populations. “As the missions grew, California’s native population of Indians began a catastrophic decline.”[10] Gregory Orfalea estimates that pre-contact population was reduced by 33% during the Spanish and Mexican regimes. Most of the deaths stemmed from imported diseases and the disruption of traditional ways of life, but violence was common, and some historians have charged that life in the missions was close to slavery.[11]"
My modification was:
"Even with their imperfections, the Laws of the Spanish Crown protected the native population [10]. Once the territory became part of independent Mexico their rights were stripped and Spanish missionaries were forced to leave the new country. The missions were dismembered and their land distributed under the Mexican Secularization Act of 1833. Later, when the territories were incorporated to The United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the indigenous population was considered a nuisance by both countries and The United States pursued a policy of physical elimination."
Your removal is based on "did not appear constructive". In my humble opinion the previous text "did not appear constructive".
The impression given is that all white people were a danger for the natives when it is not true.
My arguments are the following:
"Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for native populations" is not accurate, at least for the Spanish period.
Missions were stablished to convert natives to Christianity and assimilate them under the Spanish Empire standards (language, religion, laws, trade, currency, military projection...). Those under the mission jurisdiction were complied to some "forced labour". Spanish laws protected indians against abuses, albeith this protection was not always enforced. "Some historians have charged that life in the missions was close to slavery" is biased as you may also write that "some historians praised the presidio-missions assimilation system".
The was some enforced labour for few days each year, impossible to assimilate to slavery. Natives had civil rights a slave would never imagine.
My point is
-. Under the Spanish Empire natives had a protection from the State and were entitled some rights, even if some cases enforcement was difficult (I quoted the text of the Indian Laws enacted by the Spanish Crown)
-. Under Mexican independence the missions system was disbanded offering no viable protection to the natives as Law enforcement did before.
-. Under the US jurisdiction the State of California passed laws directed to the native population extermination as it is stated in the next paragraphs of the same Wikipedia article. Bounties were paid to those who showed up with "redskin" scalps.
In consequence:
I ask you to reconsider your removal and publish back my version.
Firstly, I do not find anything in the article that mentions the word "redskin"; it is offensive, do not use it again here.
Secondly, your edit [6] removed content and two verifiable independently-sourced citations to reliable references: the New York Times and the Santa Cruz Sentinel and associated content. Because, it seems, you did not agree with them. Countless other sources support the content that your edit removed, for example:[7], [8], [9], the books "A Cross of Thorns: The Enslavement of California's Indians by the Spanish Missions" (Elias Castillo),[10] and many others. Your edit replaced that sourced content with primary material based on a 1893 text about a 1542 law about the "West Indies" in general, not on California specifically.
By removing the NYT/SCS-sourced content in the article, it disrupted NPOV. A better option would have been to use the article talk page. Another option would have been to introduce your 16th C. source framed as a historical primary source (without removing content you personally disagree with.)
Either way, it's unconstructive to remove content that you personally disagree with - WP is based on verifiable reliable sources, not personal opinion. I hope that helps to explain why your edit was reverted. Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
--
Hi again Netherthone:
1. On the term "redskin". I am Spanish from Spain and I have never heard it before and obviously I didn't know it was offensive.
″In his January 1851 message to the California legislature, California Governor Peter H. Burnett promised "a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct." Newspapers cheered on the campaign. In 1853 the Yreka Herald called on the government to provide aid to "enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time--the time has arrived, the work has commenced and let the first man who says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor." Other newspapers voiced similar sentiments.″
2. History is not about opinion, but about facts.
On the section I deleted, disrupting NPOV, I suppose can be amended adding other NPOV with a different approach, based in scientific sources. I ask for your advice before doing so.
"Your edit replaced that sourced content with primary material based on a 1893 text about a 1542 law about the "West Indies" in general, not on California specifically.":
Every historian on the Spanish Empire knows that this Law was enacted for all the territory, from Cape Horn to what is present day Oregon. The 1893 translation to English is the only one I found to enlighten English language speakers.
Oh, B.S. - you must know "redskin" is offensive; and the link you provided is not reliable. You have been warned that racial slurs are taken very seriously here. You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
_sherd_pot,_modern_era,_Crocker_Art_Museum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_sherd_pot,_modern_era,_Crocker_Art_Museum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
