User talk:Glenfarclas

This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Archives (Index)

2010 1 2010 2 2010 3 2011 1 2015 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the serious lulz here. Pcap ping 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Terry Urban

I've got the article drafted. Could you please take a look at the article and either give me pointers or, if it's ready, move it out to the main encyclopedia? Thank you! User:Shazleton/Terry urban —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll take a look now.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Well, to be honest what I'm seeing right now is pretty minimal evidence of notability. Better than most of the Myspace bands that show up on Wikipedia, mind you, but the references in the article are to a RollingStone.com blog post, an announcement from Urban himself, what I would consider a minor article from MTV.com, and the Grey Goose "rising star" mention, which is hard to discern but may be purely commercial in nature. It's definitely enough that I wouldn't nominate him for deletion, but others may have different ideas. Other than that, the article looks fine, though the "Discography" section would be more meaningful if it at least had dates of release or something. One other tip: if and when you move the article into the mainspace, capitalize his last name in the title. I've never figured out why so many articles are created with titles like "Joe smith" or "Mary o'henry," but it generally cries out for deletion. I hope this helps--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Glen- Will this Terry Urban interview with the Village Voice suffice as notable? http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2009/06/interview_terry.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Signed by Scott Hazleton User:Shazleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, by itself I don't think the interview would make him notable; an interview with someone is not really as significant as an article about someone. Combined with the other sources about him, again, I wouldn't nominate him for deletion. I'm not an expert in news coverage of Dirty South mixtape producers, though, so I'm not sure there's much more I can tell you!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Glen - this is an article from Entertainment Weekly about Terry Urban and all the news about his "Southerngold" mixtape. Will this work? http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/06/04/santigold-remix-project-southerngold-gets-shut-down/ Signed by Scott Hazleton User:Shazleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Glen- Will this big, non-Q&A style article on Terry Urban work for notability? http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/06/04/santigold-remix-project-southerngold-gets-shut-down/ We would like to publish the wikipedia page as soon as possible. Thank you! User:Shazleton/Terry urban —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazleton (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I would think so. I'm not an admin or everybody else, so my go-ahead really does not mean much. However, since you're his publicist, I'd strongly encourage you to review WP:COI if you haven't already. If the article were nominated for deletion, having an obvious promotional/COI issue won't help its chances any. Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Glen. I appreciate your help. I have based Terry's page on many other DJ pages. I dont think his page could have any conflicts of interest. Thank you, Scott comment added by Shazleton (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Zak Kustok

No problem with the ride. Just something I found. Usually, I like to add personal details. Maybe it is unencyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I work on a lot of low importance articles and people fight with me about content all the time. They say, if HOFer so and so does not have x-type details, why should Joe almost-AFDed have them. In truth, all articles have the same types of guidelines. If the person is notable you are suppose to fill in as much as you can about their life to give it as much depth and breadth as possible. Not as many people care about his mother's name as they do Brett Favre's, but in terms of filling in an encyclopedia, it is as important to give as complete a picture of his family details as anyone else's. I put info on Vanessa Rousso's whip because hers is really cool. However, details that rise to sufficient importance as to be included in major newspapers are all eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I am not going to allocate any more time to finding personal details about this guy because there are a lot of other articles I could be spending my time improving. I am just not so sure we should be removing details because he is not as important as other people. I would argue for its inclusion. I will not really be paying much attention to the article going forward however. I would rather it be reinserted than not. It tells us a bit about his family and that helps the reader know who he is. His article has limited appeal, but we should do our best to fill it in for those that it appeals to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines may be the same for President Big and Willie Marginal, but if so then their application is different in each case, and rightly so. John F. Kennedy, for instance, sits at the center of a huge cycle of lengthy articles about various aspects of his life, large, small, and smaller still. Joe Wurtzelbacher, not so much. I guess I see a risk in adding information to a biographical article merely because it exists and there's a citation for it. Newspapers print a lot of things, and human-interest tidbits may make sense from a sports-desk standpoint, but that doesn't make all of them encyclopedic. That's why we don't turn every newspaper's police blotter into June 18th, 2008 construction site tools theft in Norwalk, Ohio — and, frankly, we don't stick that information into Norwalk, Ohio, either.

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to discount (or caricature) your view, only to explain why my view seems to differ somewhat. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have cut way back on WP time since the December. As a result, I have less time to fight about retaining marginal content for marginal articles. His article is multiples better than when I found it. Basically, I like to contribute to WP in areas where I am interested in learning about missing content. In all honesty, I don't caer much about Northwestern football. I have added everything that I personally care about learning about this guy. I will reserve the full Tiger treatment to University of Michigan guys, hot women and less marginal people of personal interest. His baby tiger treatment certainly tells everyone exactly who he was. I just don't want to slog through NU football history. I contacted a half dozen NU article contributors. If they don't want to expand this article further, I don't either. I just hope nothing else gets removed that I added. I have a bunch of Michigan guys on my todo list that will require a lot more attention than his article. I didn't go through the game details for O'Brien Schofield either. When I get around to Jason Avant, I will probably at least make a cursory pass at each season of his NCAA career. I will also do each NFL season. When I am done, Avant's article may be as detailed as my current Tai Streets article. This is merely because, I would have fun reading Michigan articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Captain R.T. Claridge

Hi Glenfarclas. Thanks for you message regarding the moving debacle. Since all this unnecessary kerfuffle, I have looked at the naming conventions.

I chose the name of the article for the simple reason that it is the name by which Claridge became known in the literature, which becomes very self-evident as one wades through the stuff. Indeed it was only the act of working on this article that I found the material giving him his full name.

So I chose the article name on the basis of logic alone, before I was aware of the naming conventions. Fortunately for logic, the naming conventions arrive at a similar conclusion, thus, regarding qualifiers: "This is rather a practical than a principal rule, so the general principle of 'the unambiguous name a person is best known by' easily takes precedence." It also states "If a qualifier is used in the title of a page where the content is, it is never abbreviated." Again, I came to the same conclusion when naming the article, but by logic alone.

I do however appear to stand corrected regarding spacing between initials. I saw "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them", and left it at that. But looking again, I see the next sentence is: "However, in most Wikipedia articles where the subject uses two consecutive initials, the space between initials is used; see Literary initials." Checking that link, there is a list of examples, which in fact I was trying to find by various means prior to us getting to this point.

But in that process, I did find Captain E.G. Beaumont, which has both the initials without spacing, and the use of Captain before the name. Also, that article, and some others with Captain in the name, existed some time prior to the article which I created, and are not as substantive in content. Why have they been overlooked? I have no opinion on whether their names should remain, as I don't know without reviewing the literature - and nor does ANY editor - whether that reflects their general usage or not.

A Google check can help of course. And since this kerfuffle has arisen, I did a Google check, which gave more returns for Captain R.T. Claridge than for say Richard Tappin Claridge. But I already knew that, from the time and effort I spent researching for the article. So if anyone should know it's me (and if logic is allowed to prevail, this conclusion is unavoidable, even if one thinks I'm just an obnoxious bastard), and I wasn't asked at any point in the proceedings. Never mind etiguette, which itself would have some people in fits, this to me is basic logic. Regards Wotnow (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, all of what you say sounds fine with me! I just wanted to make sure you knew we had guidelines that talked about these things, but I figured you'd know better than I would whether "Captain R.T. Claridge" was a set phrase, as it were. And as to other article titles, I wouldn't give too much consideration to backwater articles that have never been edited much. I hope your move goes well, whatever you choose—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I think it's as resolved as it's going to get, courtesy of User talk:WereSpielChequers#Captain R.T. Claridge redirect page. And probably as resolved as it needs to be. The arrangement as it now stands does no harm, and may do some good, and I've learned something in the process. That's not a bad thing. In hindsight, the original renaming was probably in good faith, although it was hard for me to tell at the time, what with the arbitrary, undiscussed, unilateral renaming, followed by a return to tag the article as an orphan, which it wasn't prior to the renaming. But it matters not. It matters to move forward and learn as we go, trying not to do harm to each other in the process of that learning.

Good point on the backwater articles with little editing, although that is more a symptom of some underlying factors which several of us have noted anectdotally, and for which it turns out there has been some analysis. As you're probably aware, even heavily trafficked articles have few active editors relative to their readership.

Consider this study, from this page, in which the author says there is a "small number of very active contributors in each version" (p.157). Moreover, Wikipedia activity appears to have fatal consequences. The author says "there is an extraordinary high mortality rate in all languages", and "the monthly number of deaths of logged authors in the top ten language versions surpassed the monthly number of new logged authors coming to contribute for the first time". Gotta love the language use of non-native users! But we know what it means. High turnover of editors, with implications for the sustainability of Featured Article output, given that most FA editors are experienced, and there is mortailty there as well of course. Couple this with other apparent and/or reported patterns and there is the possibility of a positive feedback pattern.

The degree to which this occurs, or is occurring, in Wikipedia, remains to be seen. The good thing is I see there are proactive efforts to analyse the patterns, as in this outlining key findings of the above thesis, this here, and some interesting stuff on 'community health'.

So the low editorship of the backwater article phenomenon is symptomatic of a broader phenomenon. All articles suffer low editorship relative to their readership. Perhaps it would help to have less attention by editors to well-developed high-readership articles, since by definition they won't disappear in a hurry. And cross-polllination of editors stepping not only into less developed articles (where low development and low readership creates its own positive feedback cycles), but into areas outside their interests. The chances are one will pick up stuff leading back to the area of interest anyway, no matter what area one researches. Everything is related at some level, whether it's 'up' to the more abstract categories and principles, or down to the nitty-gritty of hard-core empiricism. Or stepping from say, hardcore science into the socio-historical context of that science (as Stephen Jay Gould often did), and on it goes. Some relationships are obvious, some become obvious, and some are surprising, which is where the fun comes in. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In constuctig the above comments, I was trying to find this on active participation estimates, which I found from a link at Wikipedia:Statistics. I could picture the tables, and I remembered something like 1%, but didn't cite it because I couldn't find it, having lost track of the number of things I'd waded through. The actual estimate turns out to be lower. 0.1% or less. This ain't a prelude to another dissertation. Just to point you to what else I'd been pondering on as I wrote (yeah, okay, and I can find it easier next time). Regards. Wotnow (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article and citation reliabilty

Hmm, that dissertation was very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I'll have to take a bit more time to look at it before I know what to think; as a general principle, though, my gut feeling is that even if the ratios are the same I'd expect to rely more on an article read by 20,000 people and edited by 20 than an article read by 2,000 people and edited by 2.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably concur with that as a rule of thumb. The caveat would be that a check gives evidence of good calibre research. One can find high readership articles that contain misquotations, erroneous citations, misleading quotations, quotations that don't exist in the reference cited, plagiarism etc.

In high traffic articles, this can be deliberate or accidental. High traffic articles covering controversial topics or people, including in science, can be especially prone to deliberate 'error'. Regarding error, apart from at-the-time accident or human error, other types of accidental occurance can occur over a period of time. For example a simple by-product of context disintegration over a long period of good-faith editing. Sometimes it's easy to spot, as it just stands out. For online texts, search functions are a boon for checking citations, especialy specific quotes, or even paraphrases. Other findings are a combination of sheer accident upon checking.

My correction of the number of classes of histones from six to five was of this accidental kind. I began developing the Dawkins vs. Gould article, which led me to the Eva Jablonka article, which was undeveloped. I 'stopped off' to develop it, and encountered discussion on histones. This led me to checking the histone article, which led me to checking Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, which led me to noting a discrepancy between the number of histone classes in the article (6) and in Lehninger (5). The Lehninger text is generally reliable, but like any text, it could have been wrong, or the knowledge-base could have changed. Further checking led me to the other citations which I added with Lehninger prior to amending the number of classes (the 3 citations collectively allowing a reader to see the stability of the classification, hence the choice, because it was a question I had to answer for myself in the process. I found other references back to 1974, but these 3 collectively do the job, covering the range of information I found).

One problem is that few people go to the trouble of checking citations. This applies everywhere, but it stands out in a publicly editable encyclopedia, and even fewer people go the trouble of actually fixing the fixable. This of course is the same phenomenon as readership-editorship ratios, indeed any sphere of life, where those going along for the ride always outnumber those doing the work to make the ride possible. I found one high traffic, well-edited article where some citations had been deliberately blanked out in a vandal attack over a year ago. I worked that out just from checking citations. What was disturbing was that in a high traffic article, I was the first to pay enough attention to notice and fix long-missing references.

So while high traffic articles represent, and even generate, the bulk of the interest bringing people to Wikipedia, the criterion of significance regardless of article length, or amount of traffic, is article reliability. And that typically boils down to the reliability of the citations, quite apart from how the article is constructed. A poorly constructed but reliably referenced article is far more valuable than a well constructed but unreliably referenced article. Not to be confused with a well-written article that you know is right because you know the subject area, but just isn't adequately referenced. With an unreliably referenced article, if you don't know the subject matter, and you don't check further, you're going to be mislead. And if you do know the subject matter, as a reader you're not going to give the article much credence. If Wikipedia and its readers are lucky, someone who knows the subject matter, will contribute to improving the article.

The main difference between a reader and an editor then, is that a reader, not being an editor, is excused from making an effort to improve undeveloped articles. Unfortunately for us editors, we don't have that excuse. We only have the excuse that we can't do everything that needs doing, which brings me back to my original point. Well-developed, high-traffic articles don't need as much attention from editors as undeveloped articles. If we don't do it, no one will. Sorry about the further dissertation. I'm just fleshing out thoughts not previously fleshed out, stimulated by your own feedback. I promise not to carry on ad infitum. Kind regards. Wotnow (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rock band 3

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rock band 3, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. GedUK  10:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Joseph Peicott

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joseph Peicott, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Producing some episodes of notable shows is just about enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  10:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gamesoft Technology

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gamesoft Technology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: When GameClub's AfD runs out, renominate. At the moment, publishing a portal with an article is enough for A7. Sorry. Thank you. GedUK  10:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Abigail Gibbs

I think that this article should not be deleted as the mentioned person is an immensely popular author, who has received rave reviews for her book which has 43 chapters as of now. This is not an easy feat for a 15 year old child and thus is very notable. Even if the book has not yet been published, we all make a start somewhere and having a page on a highly popular website like Wikipedia may just give the writer the boost she needs and realize the dream of getting her book published. Therefore it is my ardent request to just leave the page online and not delete it as, since Abigail Gibbs has a very large fan following, there will be a lot of visitors to this page.Jemimah 1603 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WCG_(firm) blue_cartoon buzzie

Editing thyself are we Glen? Or are have you chosen FEB 2, to pick on me? Either way, good luck and good day to you.

So you found my company work trying to update and make WCG_(firm) more accurate and notable. I was deleting duplicate pages and adding citations. Then you wander over to see what else I had worked on and tagged my musical endevors for deletion. Lack of reviews eh? Did you Google any of the albums or artists? Or did you MARK FOR DELETION? I see from your user profile you are a "deleter"

You can even delete unfavorable content from your USER page though it appears as if you have reviews of your work at the bottom of that page. But alas it's a lie.

* "84.9% deletion. Well done! Guess you're on my case now, eh?" --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, edit on Glen, delete me if you must from as much of the wikipedia as you must. But look before you snip. And if you are going to create a trail of deletion on my work, you'd best just skip the tagging and remove the pages yourself. And now for my signiture. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacofearth (talk • contribs)

First, please try to remain remain civil on my talkpage. As to your concerns, in no particular order:

• The box is on my userpage to incentivize me to make good nominations for Articles for Deletion.
• As you'll notice, my userpage says "Feel free to write on my talk page and let me know how I'm doing" (emphasis added). I occasionally copy comments I think particularly thoughtful, absurd, or wildly abusive to my userpage, at my own discretion, for fun. It's not an open invitation to comment on my editing (you may do so here instead), and generally what I have there are just short phrases. Sorry, but I didn't think your comment fit the theme.
• Yes, I saw you adding multiple copies of the same article (for a company with which you have a conflict of interest). Specifically, you created WCGworld, and then, seventeen minutes it was tagged for speedy deletion, you created WCG (firm) with the same content. I try to [[WPAGF|AGF], but on the surface that looks like an attempt to make an end-run around the speedy deletion process, so I looked through your history to see whether your other edits indicated a pattern of devious or abusive behavior. They didn't (though they do indicate a strong pattern of editing where you have a flat-out conflict of interest, which is a bad thing), but in my review I came across two bands which do not appear to be notable, and tagged them for deletion. Did I "target" you because I don't like you? No, not at all. Did you draw my attention by creating multiple copies of an article on the same company? Yes, you absolutely did. Let that be a lesson.
• Blue Cartoon may be (at the low end of) notable. Since it's your band, it's no wonder you did a better job at finding reviews and other sources to support it, but I certainly tried. I'll withdraw my PROD on it and consider whether to send it to AfD. However, Buzzie still does not appear to be notable, and the sources you've added don't help. (See WP:BAND). I'll let the PROD on that one stand.
• And finally, I cannot delete pages myself; that's reserved to administrators.

—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See AfD on Wikipedia for guidance: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I did—I redirected the duplicate pages, which you took as a some personal affront. Also, I'm sorry but I cannot understand how you can claim you were simply trying to "consolidate pages" when you created WCGworld and then WCG (firm) while WeissComm Partners already existed. Tripling the pages on the same company doesn't "consolidate" them under any meaning of the concept. Last, if you intend to reply, please do do below this comment, and not interspersed throughout comments above, which makes it extremely difficult to tell who is responsible for what text. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... fair enough. I will not use inline commenting.

So tripling the pages in an effort to consolidate to one: Yes it is true, that when I saw an example of a well-done PR firm page Edelman_(firm) I noted the _(firm) mark and made a new page immediately and redirected the WCGworld page. If you had looked at the discussion page you would've seen my comment of my consolidation. But you did not. What you should understand is the discussion pages are there for just that, discussion. If you are going to quick delete a page at least check in on the {hold on} status on the dicussion page. Don't you think that is fair to ask?

And you then proceeded to delete WCG as a reference off the disambiguation page. Why did you do that? Did you think I was spamming that page as well?

I didn't care about the redirect pages at all. In fact you did teach me something. And you beat me in redirecting the [Weisscomm_partners] page to the WCG_(firm) page. I now know the proper one line of code to redirect a page to the correct page. You have done your job well. Thanks for that.

I still would like to know what makes a band *notable* in YOUR, glenfarclas, opinion. And if you don't have the courtesy to do a google search yourself before citing lack of notability, well, you then are not doing what is asked in the code of conduct referring to problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and *fix the problem* or tag the article appropriately. Or if you wish, tag for deletion. You are on your own. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I did think you were spamming. I've been patrolling new pages for a while, and generally when a person creates a duplicate page under a different title after their first try has been tagged for speedy deletion it's because they're trying to evade the regular process. I believe you that that wasn't your intent, and if you'd like an explanation, here goes. You created WCGworld, then it was tagged db-spam. You then added the hangon tag, with the talkpage rationale, "I am consolidating several VALID pages into one page WCGworld." Then, without having consolidated anything, you created WCG (firm). At the talkpage of that article, you also stated that you were "consolidating several VALID pages into one page WCGworld." Next, you changes that to say you were consolidating to WCG-(firm), with a hyphen, which did not exist. Really, though, it was impossible to make out exactly what you were attempting to do, since the fact is that you were not then, nor have you ever been, trying to consolidate anything. To consolidate articles would be to take three articles and squeeze their content down into one. Instead, you had taken one article and spread it around into triple the pages. You may have been trying to move WeissComm Partners to WCG (firm), leaving redirects at WeissComm Partners and WCGworld, but that's not remotely close to what you actually did. Since I couldn't understand your conduct or intentions and it fit the MO of a business spammer, of which Wikipedia attracts many, I found it easiest to redirect from the article that did not have a speedy deletion tag to the one that did. However, just so we're clear, I've never tagged any of your pages for speedy deletion or deleted them in any way. Redirects (as you know) can easily be undone, retargeted, or whatever.

As far as bands go, I try to hew to WP:BAND. Most commonly, that means determining whether the band "[h]as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." I checked the Google News archive, which is generally where we find reliable-source coverage if any exists, but your band has zero hits, let alone significant coverage. I scanned the regular Google hits for "blue cartoon" and "blue cartoon"+mcelhenney, but most hits were MySpace-type stuff and pages obviously unrelated to your band. I saw the Austin Chronicle piece, but one paragraph in your local "alternative weekly, tabloid-style newspaper" does not make for notability. The Amplifier Magazine review, for what it's worth, is hit #222. Sorry I didn't get that far.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Glen my new friend your statement, "Instead, you had taken one article and spread it around into triple the pages. You may have been trying to move WeissComm Partners to WCG (firm), leaving redirects at WeissComm Partners and WCGworld, but that's not remotely close to what you actually did." Shows your age and impatience. If you had added ANYTHING to the discussion page, as it requested when you mark something as spam or deletion, we could've carried on a civil discourse. Instead you jumped down the rabbit hole and started editing, deleting and then tracking back to my music. That is NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA. Here a ref for you: ("Two differing perspectives on notability are commonly known as "inclusionism" and "deletionism". It is not hard to tell from your profile which camp you live in.

I see that you are working to make a name for yourself here. Thus you used pedantic language when addressing my edits. You did not engage in the Discussion page. See WP:DR to get refreshed on good faith conduct.

Going after my music is uncalled for an again NOT IN THE SPIRIT of collaboration that is Wikipedia. You are young. You are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. But stand back and take a breath after you have tagged someone's page as spam. The see if the work that the person is doing is Spam or Collaboration. Jumping to conclusions and then aggressively tracking the persons other work to the point of attacking my musical ambitions. Please enlighten me as to how this makes any sense at all: PRODSUM. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, no, I did not mark any of your pages for deletion as spam, as the edit history will show you. So what's the citation to WP:DR for? There was no dispute until you started taking everything personally. I redirected, you eventually changed things to the way you wanted them (which did involve redirecting two of the same three pages), and I had no subsequent problem with it. No need to manufacture a dispute where none exists. And as to spam versus collaboration, you might want to look back through your own edit history and ask when the last time was that you contributed to the project on a page where you were not promoting either yourself or something you're personally involved with. Then come back and lecture me about what's "NOT IN THE SPIRIT" of the project, thanks.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Glen, let's back track for a second and get some facts straight:

• You are correct you flagged *both* of my musical projects for deletion not spam: see history of buzzie (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD.) and blue cartoon (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD.). I stand corrected.
• You began editing WCGworld (this is the one you marked as Spam.) and WCG_(firm) as I was clearly working on the pages. Why didn't you and any perspective to the TALK pages of these sites?
• You withdrew your WP:PROD off Blue Cartoon, with some snide comments. (Blue Cartoon may be (at the low end of) notable.)
• And sarcasticly replied here as to why you were not removing your PROD citation on Buzzie. (see above "Buzzie still does not appear to be notable, and the sources you've added don't help. (See WP:BAND). I'll let the PROD on that one stand.")
• You even admit to your mistake of pre-judging my WCG work as spam. But you didn't comment on the Talk page there either.
• You use some vague reason for hunting my work and marking it for deletion as some connection to how you perceived my WCG work as spam. I think this type of punitive behavior is what I am IDing as vindictive and not in the spirit of collaboration. No lecture, just common courtesy.

In the spirit of wikipedia, "If the page has a problem you can help fix it or you can simply mark it for removal." It is clear what your approach is as some 84.9% of all of your contributions are not contributions at all, but subtractions. You can apologize now, but I am not holding my breath for that nor the dePRODing of buzzie. So be it.

So we are nearly done on our trajectory of untangling our edits at this point. Please see buzzie no as I have added 18 references. And *hopefully* satisfied at least the notoriety of band members criteria. (See WP:BAND). I'd love to entertain your comments on the TALK page of the article in question.

Namasté. --jmacofearth (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here goes:

1. No, I didn't mark WCGworld as spam. I'm fact, I've never edited it, as the revision history will show you. It was tagged {{db-spam}} by User:RadioFan at 20:14 in this edit. When you recreated it under WCG (firm)—contradicting your comment at Talk:WCGworld that you were "consolidating" to WCGworld—I redirected the new article (consolidated it, if you like) to the existing one which already had the deletion template that RadioFan had applied. So what "perspective" was there to add at a talk page? You said you were consolidating to WCGworld, I redirected to WCGworld. If you didn't like it, you could just hit undo.
2. Sorry you found it snide to say that Blue Cartoon may be at the low end of notability. That's my opinion though—and please remember that notability in Wikipedia has nothing to do with the merits of the subject; as the article explains, "[i]n general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." Has an article been written about Buzzie in a major Texas newspaper? What about in a newspaper from another state? It doesn't look like it. A lot of your 18 sources appear to either not mention Buzzie at all, or else are blogs or totally unreliable sources like Answers.com.
3. I'm trying to take you to school here, but from your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzie you might not fully understand what's being looked for in terms of coverage and what a reliable source is. Links to iTunes are great, but they simply cannot help establish notability. That's because any band can sell their music on iTunes. Also, it's not a reliable source. As I understand it, the information on, e.g., a track at iTunes is provided by the label (or whoever is selling it). It's not as though Apple has a team of accountable editors who investigate, verify, and report the information. It's basically self-reported, which is a classic non-reliable source.
4. Sorry you found my comment "sarcastic" that Buzzie was non-notable and that the sources you added didn't help prove its notability. No sarcasm was intended; that was really my opinion.
5. Before you ask, I had absolutely nothing to do with Buzzie being sent to AfD.
6. I'm not "hunting your work." Your strange edits to the WCG series of articles drew my attention. When someone makes uncalled-for edits to one thing, it's worth exploring whether they've done the same thing elsewhere. It's not "punishing" them, it's trying to look out for the project. Now, it sounds like you recognize that the way you went about the WCG issue was mistaken. That's not intended as a criticism, and there's nothing wrong with it, we all learn by doing and I, like everyone else, have made plenty of mistakes in trying to go about things the wrong way. Unfortunately for you, though, the way in which you were mistaken—creating multiple copies of a page featuring fawning business-promo language about a company you're affiliated with—is not uncommon as an MO for business spammers. We get that a lot. It draws attention.
7. So while I was reviewing your edits I came across your bands. I didn't PROD them to punish you for your WCG articles, I did it because I was sitting there looking at them and if I didn't do it it wouldn't get done. They'd been tagged for notability problems for over half a year. You note that "If [a] page has a problem you can help fix it or you can simply mark it for removal." Well, again, they'd had maintenance templates calling for improvement since last June, and you had taken no action. When I looked into them, neither seemed to be notable. Sorry, you can't "fix" the lack of notability of an article's subject. Maybe if I were the arts editor of the New York Times I could write a feature about your band and then link to it from the article.
8. A very small percentage of my edits involves nominating article for AfD. The table means that of the ones I have nominated, 84.9% have resulted in deletion. Ideally it would be 100%; that's why I put the table there, after I made a couple of not-so-well-considered nominations, as an encouragement for myself only to nominate articles for which the consensus will be to delete.

Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not with WCGworld that's the page that you helped me on with the redirect. I've said thanks already for that, but again, "Thanks." The TALK comments are on WCG_(firm) where I do see that you were very helpful. Again, thank you.

Your comment on buzzie: "No sarcasm was intended; that was really my opinion." Speaks volumes. In fact the Austin Chronicle, no matter how your characterize the tabloid-style news periodical IS a trusted music authority. We have this thing in Austin called SXSW, it's kind of a big deal. I think the external links to the OTHER musicians that are part of Buzzie should go a long way to establishing the credibility, based on the guidelines here. WP:BAND

So I don't think "opinion" is supposed to be in play when making a judgment call on a band's notability. Nor is COI, if the page is merely facts. There is no promospeak, no hyperbole. Just the facts of the players and discography.

Cheers back to you. Thanks for your help. (That was sincere.) I think the WCG thing was late at night here in Texas and I was not intending to do anything but update the company page and redirect everything to WCG_(firm). I think that has been established.

As far as Buzzie, I guess it's up to others now. I will populate some more references and reviews. It's true MSM does not pay much attention to power pop bands, and Austin in particular is sort of Blues-Biased. But there are still plenty of reviews and performance information. And if you look at who worked on the record, it's not about Glen's "opinion" it is about the spirit of the article. It's not even really about COI, with transparency comes clarity. Sure I can get someone else to do a few edits to make it less me-on-me, but establishing a bands page is not a longshot, it's a given. Provided the rules are followed, the spirit of the wiki is present, and people communicate.

The process has worked just fine in our case. Started out with some misunderstandings, but hey, that's why we continue to edit, update and come back and do it again.

Thanks for your support in my efforts both musically and wikially. (grin) --jmacofearth (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I think we can put this issue to bed. Just a couple of things:

1. No, "opinion" in the sense of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't in play as to notability, but what's involved is editors' evaluation of whether a subject meets the applicable inclusion guideline. This judgment can't be performed by a robot and different editors may evaluate the strength of coverage or the significance of sources, etc. That evaluation was what I was calling "my opinion." There's no Platonic ideal of a particular subject's notability floating out there; rather, editors opine based on the evidence, and hopefully that leads to a consensus of views.
2. As to the Austin Chronicle, you may well be right about its importance, I was just quoting Austin Chronicle. However, what you have is (a) lowish coverage, in a (b) local paper. When I'm evaluating a band's notability, I'd generally hope to see either (a) fairly strong local coverage, or (b) some significant coverage outside of the band's hometown. Plenty of non-notable stuff (me, for instance) gets mentioned in its local paper. Getting mentioned elsewhere, or really getting covered locally, starts to show notability. Wikipedia is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia of global scope.
3. I don't see that either "the spirit of the article" or "the spirit of the wiki" has anything to do with a subject's notability.

And no worries about the misunderstanding. I probably shouldn't have taken assumed you were a business spammer, and you probably shouldn't have assumed I was "hunting" or "punishing" you. Offsetting penalties, play the next down. Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Namasté. Who do you like in the superbowl? --jmacofearth (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All in all the Colts b/c I like Manning, but if New Orleans wins at least I can feel good for the city's sake. I'm not too tied up in either of these teams though.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Creek Freedman

Wow you handled that fast. I only got a glimpse of the article. I saw that is was in the beginning stages were the few sources listed unreliable??Mcelite (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The entire article was a cut-and-paste (though with omissions and, possibly, some rearrangement) from a historical website. The article even had a © and copyright notice at the bottom. A pretty good sign it's non-free content!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion? Share with us!

We are having problems to reach a stable consensus about removal of visa-free sections from the Passport articles. Please share your opinion with us here: Talk:Passport and here: a request for mediation Thanks. --Ozguroot (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

220 Twentieth Street, Arlington, VA

There are at least 5 citations, and while this is a mess, don't you think it could be tagged and fixed? Bearian (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The citations, in order, are:

1. blog post on a real estate blog;
2. two-paragraph blog post;
3. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries page about a waterfowl sanctuary, no mention of this building;
4. property manager's website, stating that this building won the Delta Associations Mid-Atlantic Multifamily Award in the category Best Adaptive Reuse Apartment Project, Mid-Atlantic;
5. Zoominfo.com profile of the architecture firm, no mention of the building; and
6. the architecture firm's homepage, no mention of the building I can find.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I just really don't think this is a notable apartment building, in the sense of what belongs in a global encyclopedia. I looked around before prodding, and couldn't find anything significant beyond what was already in the references. A bit of real estate blog coverage and a totally non-notable business award? I have to say, the DC area alone probably has a thousand office and apartment buildings that are as noteworthy as this one.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, good work. Bearian (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. As far as buildings go, my The Cathcart AfD has been a debacle, but I felt pretty confident in tagging this one (and the author's other one ... and in reverting the author's listing of himself as a notable resident of Ogunquit, Maine).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Skybuilt Power

Hello Glenfarclas. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Skybuilt Power, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

JATRI-Journalism Training and Research Initiative

I see your point, and have deleted under R3. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Cape

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic Cape as a speedy keep, in line with your suggestion. It would be helpful if you added the reference you quoted in the AfD to the article. I would do so myself, but the page numbers and other metadata to make a full citation are not present in the AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I found that the URL link gave the needed data, so i added the ref myself. Thanks for finding it. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arun Bali

I have rewritten (I guess I can call it that) the article on Arun Bali. Does it still deserve the deletion tag? Last Contrarian (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these significant roles per WP:ENT? To me they all pretty much look like bit parts, such as a minister in Hey Ram.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

His part in Hey Ram is about 3-4 scenes I think. Religious riots break out in Calcutta as a result of his actions and he has to face the wrath of the crowd. I can say though that his role in Chanakya is by no means a bit part. He features in around 8 of the 47 episodes and has multiple scenes in most of them including the famous conversation with Alexander. He's a character actor, not someone who's there for a scene or two and then disappears. That's all I can say about him. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you can go ahead and remove the PROD if you think he's notable. I appreciate your work on the article—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprodding of Calvary Cemetery, Billings, Montana

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Calvary Cemetery, Billings, Montana, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! NW (Talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I most likely will. Pretty sure this is a completely run-of-the-mill graveyard.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Jammie Jolly

Hi,

I had been working with one of your other collegues before. Can you explain why you deleted the page Jammie Jolly? I thought I satisifed all the requirements before? Can you help me to explain this? This is so frustrating trying to write this page. I need some assistance if you can. Cna you replace this page back to my user page.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnice27 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it was in fact Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) who actually deleted the article. Sorry to say I don't actually remember the contents of the article, so I can't be particularly specific, but basically it was an article about a person that did not indicate any reason to think the person was sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia of global scope. The inclusion criteria for real people is at WP:BIO, and there are specific criteria for, e.g., singers/bands at WP:MUSICBIO, actors at WP:ENT, music producers, etc., if not covered elsewhere, at WP:CREATIVE, and so on. The most common and overarching standard is that the person have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person himself. No press releases, MySpace, blog comments, answers.com, and so on. Realistically speaking, if your article is about a singer but he has not been covered (which is to say, more than "menioned") in magazines or newspapers, and if he has not been featured on a notable tour like, for instance, Warped Tour, and if he has never charted on a notable chart, then he's very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standard. "Up and coming" and "aspiring" rappers, bands, etc., are virtually always deleted. You can ask an admin, such as Accounting4Taste, to restore the article and move it back to your userpace, where I'd be happy to comment on it, but unless you can show why Jammie Jolly might meet one of the inclusion criteria his article will be deleted again if it's moved back to the mainspace. Sorry, but I hope this explanation helps—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

After being here for about four years I gave my first barnstar this past week, and now I've received my first barnstar as well. Instant karma?! Compromise can be overrated, as sometimes one effort or route is clearly all wrong; yet it's gratifying to notice and offer assistance in situations where compromise actually seems to be the best route. Thanks for your kindness! Abrazame (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Karma it is! You're more than welcome—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

cfcuk

The fanzine was formerly called "Matthew Harding's Blue And White Army" and is registered in the archives of the British Library. The front cover of EVERY edition of the cfcuk fanzine has the following printed upon it...

"Formerly Matthew Harding’s Blue And White Army, cfcuk is published in memory of Matthew Harding"

The above information also appears on the following link;

http://www.transparentsport.com/cfcuk/page.php?pname=cfcuk%20Fanzine

The fanzine is 'notable' because, while other clubs' fanzines cost £1.50 or even £2, the cfcuk price has always been and always will remain at just £1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've copied this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cfcuk, where it'll be seen by others who are considering the issue of deletion. Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,

I replied to you [here]. - Hordaland (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get Status Indicator to work

I'm just trying to follow the instructionns on placing a status indicator on my user page and getting it to work Mlpearc (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• The prefix should presumably be "User:Mlpearc/".... As it is, your page is in the article mainspace.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD ???

I do not understand why you tagged [1] this user page for deletion. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because it's not a userpage. There's a difference between User:Mlpearc/monobook.js and Mlpearc/monobook.js. The first one is in userspace, as the "User:" prefix implies; the second one is just an article in the mainspace whose title has a slash in it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:RP459 Your question and subsequent answer may have shed some light in my foggy head, lol Mlpearc (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• No problem!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL I understand! I should have noticed that :) -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi..I was told that your the guy that deletes everything!! could i get you to delete User:Buzzzsherman/monobook.js it is a page i made and did not mean to..i will not be using it..I have tried to add the delete temple but its not working.Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, only admins can delete pages. But you can add the tag {{db-u1}}, like so with the curly braces, to the page to put it on the list for speedy deletion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

O i am sorry..i have added your temple but still its not working o well ..i will just leave i dont really care..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I see what you mean. I'll just ask an admin to delete it, no problem.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)