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)
I have no objection to this edit, but I am curious about it. What is the rationale? Un sch ool 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Thanks 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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:
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)
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
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)
As requested. Sorry for the delay. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Your objections to my proposals so far have been two:
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)
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)
![]() | |
many kinds of music | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1700 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
P.S.: Please {{ ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On
Gene DiNovi, label first, then comma, then year, right?
Vmavanti (
talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
Why have you removed the template twice?
Vmavanti (
talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi. Is this Chubbles? Llhess16 ( talk) 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Luis Dubuc#Merge proposal.
Jalen D. Folf
(talk) 23:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have no objection to this edit, but I am curious about it. What is the rationale? Un sch ool 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Thanks 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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:
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)
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
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)
As requested. Sorry for the delay. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Your objections to my proposals so far have been two:
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)
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)
![]() | |
many kinds of music | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1700 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
P.S.: Please {{ ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On
Gene DiNovi, label first, then comma, then year, right?
Vmavanti (
talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
Why have you removed the template twice?
Vmavanti (
talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi. Is this Chubbles? Llhess16 ( talk) 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Luis Dubuc#Merge proposal.
Jalen D. Folf
(talk) 23:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)