This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not remove the Randy Raine-Reusch interview link, as it is the best interview with this musician available on the Internet, thank you. Badagnani ( talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove the interview link again, which is the best available online. Badagnani ( talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, please do not remove the interview again, which is the best available online. Badagnani ( talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment is illogical and does not seem to show familiarity with the subject. In fact, due to the lack of commentary on the actual content of the interview, it leads one to believe that the editor did not actually read the interview before blanking. Blogs are "generally" frowned upon because most blogs are diaries or ephemeral political commentary. This blog posting, on the other hand, is hosted on a blog website but is not a blog posting at all; it is the text of a valuable interview--so valuable, in fact, that it appears to be the first and only extensive interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please reconsider your repeated blanking and restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
An examination of WP:EL finds that this style guideline states that "links to blogs are normally to be avoided" "...except those written by a recognized authority." In this case, the interviewer is a noted authority on contemporary music, and the interviewee is the actual subject of our WP article--both being authorities in the subject of our WP article. This should solve the confusion, so I ask kindly that you restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is "plagerism," and how do you know this? Badagnani ( talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Making such accusations could be a violation of WP:BLP and, if written in a blog, may not be accurate if the blog was not written by a "recognized authority." Badagnani ( talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Badagnani, please stop adding a blog to this article. -- Tom 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment makes little sense. Many musicians that are notable according to WP guidelines (as this musician is) have no interview available on the Internet, and their WP articles thus would not "be deleted immediately." This very comment shows that the editor is again trying to act as "enforcer" and make a WP:POINT, in a subject in which he has admitted he is not notable, and does not consider sources carefully before blanking content. It further shows that the editor making such pronouncements also has little or no familiarity with our music notability guidelines, to which he refers. I have seen no evidence that the host of the interview did not actually conduct the interview, or that the interviews are "faked"; this is a rather strange claim that has not been bolstered by actual evidence. Finally, the interview is clearly not a "blog posting" per se, as explained twice before just above; as most blog postings consist of musings or ruminations about one's personal life, politics, etc--while this interview is hosted on a blog-type website, it is not a "blog posting" but instead the text of the most valuable interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please restore it and refrain from acting as "enforcer" and blanking such valuable links in future. We owe it to our users to provide the best, most comprehensive article about this individual possible, and your editing conduct is severely hampering this aim. Badagnani ( talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of profanity (for the third time, after being asked not to do so) is not helpful in this case. I see on the editor's talk page that he has been asked to moderate his tone numerous times, yet apparently has not done so. I again ask, respectfully, that the editor cease use of profanity in his discussion postings. Badagnani ( talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a RS for this? TIA -- Tom 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because 3RR is never formally broken, doesn't mean it isn't an edit war. Would you two like an outside opinion, or are you having too much fun resolving things this way? -- barneca ( talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Randy Raine-Reusch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not remove the Randy Raine-Reusch interview link, as it is the best interview with this musician available on the Internet, thank you. Badagnani ( talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove the interview link again, which is the best available online. Badagnani ( talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, please do not remove the interview again, which is the best available online. Badagnani ( talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment is illogical and does not seem to show familiarity with the subject. In fact, due to the lack of commentary on the actual content of the interview, it leads one to believe that the editor did not actually read the interview before blanking. Blogs are "generally" frowned upon because most blogs are diaries or ephemeral political commentary. This blog posting, on the other hand, is hosted on a blog website but is not a blog posting at all; it is the text of a valuable interview--so valuable, in fact, that it appears to be the first and only extensive interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please reconsider your repeated blanking and restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
An examination of WP:EL finds that this style guideline states that "links to blogs are normally to be avoided" "...except those written by a recognized authority." In this case, the interviewer is a noted authority on contemporary music, and the interviewee is the actual subject of our WP article--both being authorities in the subject of our WP article. This should solve the confusion, so I ask kindly that you restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani ( talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is "plagerism," and how do you know this? Badagnani ( talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Making such accusations could be a violation of WP:BLP and, if written in a blog, may not be accurate if the blog was not written by a "recognized authority." Badagnani ( talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Badagnani, please stop adding a blog to this article. -- Tom 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment makes little sense. Many musicians that are notable according to WP guidelines (as this musician is) have no interview available on the Internet, and their WP articles thus would not "be deleted immediately." This very comment shows that the editor is again trying to act as "enforcer" and make a WP:POINT, in a subject in which he has admitted he is not notable, and does not consider sources carefully before blanking content. It further shows that the editor making such pronouncements also has little or no familiarity with our music notability guidelines, to which he refers. I have seen no evidence that the host of the interview did not actually conduct the interview, or that the interviews are "faked"; this is a rather strange claim that has not been bolstered by actual evidence. Finally, the interview is clearly not a "blog posting" per se, as explained twice before just above; as most blog postings consist of musings or ruminations about one's personal life, politics, etc--while this interview is hosted on a blog-type website, it is not a "blog posting" but instead the text of the most valuable interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please restore it and refrain from acting as "enforcer" and blanking such valuable links in future. We owe it to our users to provide the best, most comprehensive article about this individual possible, and your editing conduct is severely hampering this aim. Badagnani ( talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of profanity (for the third time, after being asked not to do so) is not helpful in this case. I see on the editor's talk page that he has been asked to moderate his tone numerous times, yet apparently has not done so. I again ask, respectfully, that the editor cease use of profanity in his discussion postings. Badagnani ( talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a RS for this? TIA -- Tom 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because 3RR is never formally broken, doesn't mean it isn't an edit war. Would you two like an outside opinion, or are you having too much fun resolving things this way? -- barneca ( talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Randy Raine-Reusch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)