Hi, Because WP:PROD is a one-shot-only process, and Lupine Record label has previously been PRODed and deleted, I had to decline your PROD request. I have however sent the article to AfD instead. --kingboyk (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I missed the previous PROD in the log history. Thank you for the notice. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. By the way, I think you are misquoting WP:MUSIC when you ask for deletion of record label articles as "not one of the more important indie labels". The only occurrence of the word "indie" on that page is in the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". WP:MUSIC doesn't appear to cover the notability of record labels at all. I'd rely on general notability and whether they have published any notable recordings, myself. Just my 2 cents. --kingboyk (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MUSIC is the only subject-specific guideline that mentions record labels at current; I have argued in the past that it should say much more, and at one point we were quite close to having actual enumerated criteria there (someone got hung up on a technicality and I didn't push it). I may revisit that again some time. Chubbles (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, as saw another PROD with the same rationale and it irks :) me that you're using a criterion about musicians and applying it to record labels. WP:GNG seems to me to be perfectly adequate, as does reference to a lack of notable artists or recordings. Imho we don't need more, or misquoted, guidelines when the articles you are PRODding already fail to meet our central guideline on notability (and WP:NCORP for that matter). --kingboyk (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chubbles, I see you are pretty active in the music related page deletion discussions. Can I ask you for your honest opinion about the current situation happening on this page nominated for deletion? I would just like to know how you feel about it. To me personally, it seems like the nominator is just trying to attack the article, trashing all the sources. Thank you for your time! :) MusicHyper (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Just noticed WP:CANVAS might apply on my question. Please ignore what I said. MusicHyper (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I try to avoid spending a lot of time at AfD, but so many articles on my watchlist end up there that I find myself coming back to it like a heroin addiction. I'm going to avoid weighing in there, but I am disheartened to see so many editors here focusing on GNG rather than WP:MUSIC, even though the notability of this artist clearly rises or falls based on the SNG rather than the GNG. Chubbles (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My brief time on Wikipedia has been humbling, but also quite unsettling. I mean this in the sense of inconsistencies regarding deletion/notability criteria and their interpretation. Page reviewing is fraught with differing standards. To someone with Asperger's like me, an editor's ability to be able to argue for or against the deletion/creation of an article based on dozens of different guidelines is daunting, and even absurd. Imagine a justice system where the laws aren't clearly written and codified? It appears to me the only possible solution is to clarify, centralize, and validate these disparate criteria. It would take time, effort and many tears, but it's vital for the proper future functioning and viability of the encyclopedia. Until we do that, all that's left is lamenting particular cases. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throw WP:IAR into the mix, and you've basically got yourself the perfect Wikipedia chaos cocktail. There was, I think, at the outset of this project, some sense that good judgment and holistic analysis was going to come into play in deciding such things - WP:COMMONSENSE rather than WP:LAWYER as a general approach. But common sense is hard to agree on, and rules (especially here) get ossified into ends in themselves, rather than means to the end of "a free encyclopedia with all the world's knowledge in it". People here have, collectively, sometimes made terrible decisions about what to include and what to remove (in my view, much more the latter than the former, and a problem growing over time). This is all also complicated by the fact that Wikipedia is now, what, the third-most-visited website in the world? it's a brain extension in everyone's pockets, which means people trust it, and give it an importance, way out of scope with the way it is built and tended to (organically, by anonymous, self-proclaimed experts - primarily angry young male Anglophones, changed constantly and often willy-nilly, without regard to version stability or reliable source anchoring). I don't know what to do about that. It's too big to fail, and too big to start over, and too big to fix - if, indeed, we even thought we knew how to fix it. But I ain't running for ArbCom or lobbying the Wikimedia foundation to change anything, so I guess it's bad form for me to complain. Back to the trenches...I have more articles to write. Chubbles (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, cowboy. You're doing a bunch of drive-by edits, which I'm pretty sure do not involve you assessing the articles on a case-by-case basis. It also seems to be pushing an agenda, which is generally not a good thing. So put the brakes on. Now, please. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MOS:ETHNICITY says that identifying the subject's ethnicity in the lede is appropriate if "it is relevant to the subject's notability". In at least one of the articles you zipped thru, it is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JasonAQuest: What I'm most concerned about is that the typical arrangement of the first sentence of the lede is "Foo is an X Y", where X is nationality (not race or ethnicity) and Y is the occupation or reason for notability. This is a standard convention site-wide, though of course it is not codified. When nationality is replaced by race/ethnicity, it is both confusing (especially to non-Americans, who might confuse ethnicity for nationality, since they may not be familiar with American ethnicity naming conventions) and potentially a WP:UNDUE overemphasis. I've been looking only at the first sentence of the lede, and plenty of articles go on to mention the subject's race or ethnicity later in the lede, even later in the first sentence of the lede; I've not adjusted these cases, and am comfortable leaving that to major editors to judge whether MOS:ETHNICITY applies in those cases. I'm also looking at place of birth and adjusting accordingly, rather than, as you imply, merely driving by and removing the term. (I apologize for the misspelling that appears to have partly motivated your belief that I was being careless at Marlene Tseng Yu). In general, I am leaving alone articles where race or ethnicity is the principal reason for notability - for example, lynching victims and civil-rights advocates. I think that's what MOS:ETHNICITY is ultimately getting at. But for musicians, athletes, scholars, artists, etc., I'd argue that making race the first thing mentioned about the person in the article is something we as an encyclopedia should avoid. So in any case, I am not being careless, though I welcome suggestions as to how I should be more careful. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, when a ____ person does something noteworthy that's specifically related to being ____, or that isn't commonly done by ____s, that identity is part of their notability. For example, Eric M. Esquivel's ethnicity is very much a part of his notability. Hispanic/Latino writers have been very scarce in DC Comics' history (they could fit together on a elevator), his work for DC specifically drew from and focused on his latino identity (even more rare), and bigots threatened his life over it. That's mentioned (without as much subtext) in the body of the article. An "American comic book writer" writing about Latino people isn't noteworthy, but a Latino one is. I understand that you might not pick that up from half a minute glancing at an article... but that's why people who knew that spelled it out for you in the lede. The pull-up-random-article-edit-submit-repeat approach really is careless – at times yesterday you got up to 4 articles per minute, which is borderline reckless – because MOS says it requires making a judgement call. Maybe stick to editing articles about subjects you're familiar with (or at least take a little time to become familiar with)?-Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better way to write that into the lede of the article - even, to write it into the first sentence of the lede - would be to word it as, "Eric M. Esquivel is an American comic book writer whose work draws on his Latino heritage", or something like that. This would both neutrally place him geographically, as the lede typically does, and also front his ethnicity where it is appropriate to do so. I'm interested in doing this in a way that makes as few people mad as possible, so I've now decided that I won't challenge anyone who reverts any specific instance; I will trust the judgment of the community as to whether there are certain persons whose ethnicity or race is so central to their importance that it is justifiably mentioned in the article first and foremost. Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object at all to conscientious and thoughtful rewrites of ledes to better express the relationship of a person's ethnicity to their notability. The problem is that you weren't doing that. You were acting as a meatbot, cranking as fast as you could thru articles you'd barely glanced at, and deleting information too fast to catch typos or even the fact that for a little while you were blindly pasting the wrong edit summary. I object to careless editing, and that is absolutely what you were doing. Slow down, and maybe instead do what you were just talking about doing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's a fair point; I did, at one stretch, try to do two things on two different sites in parallel, which rarely goes well. The attempt did not lack thoughtfulness in intent, as I hope I have made clear, even if it may have appeared to have lacked thoughtfulness in outcome; I will work to unite those two imperatives. Chubbles (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Chubbles' changes as well. Given the racial segregation that existed in the music and wider entertainment industry (in the US especially), I think it would be helpful for some clarification in the guidance at MOS:ETHNICITY as to the criteria for determining whether ethnicity is "relevant to the subject's notability". For example, it would be ludicrous to say something like "American singer Pat Boone covered songs by American singer Little Richard", when the significant point is that one was white and the other was black. But in general I think that Chubbles' point that ethnicity should usually be expressed in the body of text rather than in the lead is correct, and I haven't reverted any of the changes made to articles on my watchlist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to reiterate that I do not necessarily oppose race or ethnicity being mentioned in the lede of an article, even if it is only tangentially related to notability. What I think is undue and confusing is when it is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede, as the very first thing the article states about the subject. Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that (so far as I know - I wasn't there) a person's ethnicity was hugely important - in fact, defining - for many of these US musicians, and removing it from the lead to take account of 21st century sensibilities - even though we might see them as correct - in fact reduces the educational value of the opening sentence of the biographical article. The opening sentence of an article is the most important part of the article - it identifies to the reader whether or not they see the article as relevant to their interest, and want to read the second sentence, or the rest of the article. My view is that changing "African-American" to "American" in many of these articles in fact reduces their usefulness and educational value - which is what we are here to promote, not our personal 21st century sensitivities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to revisit old ground, but are you aware whether or not there has been any previous discussion of this specific point (the use of "African-American" for US musicians) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography? If not, I'll raise the point there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the concern here is specifically about the term African-American, it sounds like, due to the unique contours of the black experience in the United States. This formulation is used on Wikipedia far, far more proportionally than any other race/ethnicity construct I have investigated - Asian-American had maybe 100, Latino-American and Hispanic-American a few dozen, Arab-American, white American, and European-American less than ten (though none of them zero). African-American was north of 3,000 when I started; black Americans are orders of magnitude more likely to be identified as such at the outset of the article than any other identity group. So it's now where I'm spending the most of my energies. In several cases in my recent editing, I've reworded ledes in such a way that the ethnicity is, indirectly or directly, preserved in the lede, sometimes in the second or even the first sentence of the lede, to address situations where it seemed race was particularly relevant to importance. This could be by moving the race to after the statement of nationality and occupation ("Foo was an American widget engineer who was the first African-American recipient of the Widget Prize") or by linking terms such as "slavery" or "free person of color". It's possible that appropriate balance requires more of these adjustments than I have done so far, but I had thought of this project as a necessary (from Wikipedia's philosophical standpoint) adjustment to 21st-century sensitivities, rather than a capitulation to them against good educational practice. There is still the matter of practical confusion, where the term used at the very outset may imply birth in Africa to non-US readers. (In the past couple of days, I removed from infoboxes several dozen instances of "African-American" being listed as someone's nationality, which is either clearly a mistake or a violation of WP:NPOV.)

As for discussions, I did not participate in any firsthand, but it's come up occasionally, e.g., Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2019_archive#MOS:ETHNICITY (perhaps the most relevant?). Some of the discussions are about specific articles, and others focus on the wording of disputed nationalities. Are there specific articles you'd like me to revisit and/or adjust in relation to this concern, or do you feel strongly that there should be a centralized debate? I'm happy to look at any particular examples. Chubbles (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed because it has come up on a whole string of musicians, etc., on my watchlist, rather than through specific examples. I'll go through some of them and see if I can come up with a suitable form of words - such as at Joe Medwick (blues musician), where his ethnicity was clearly important (for instance, in determining his relationship with record company owners) and needs to be mentioned, but perhaps not necessarily in the opening sentence. Another factor is where there is a photo in the article from which their ethnicity is apparent (whether important or not) - for instance at Ernie K-Doe. I'll give it some more thought. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does make sense to include race in an article like Medwick's somewhere, perhaps even later in the lede. I don't think we have an article specifically devoted to race and the recording industry (to cover things like differential contract practices), though linking to race record and African American music in ledes and biographies more generally might be useful. Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here as well to ask you to cease this activity. I do not usually involve myself in wikidrama, and avoid conflict like the plague. After noticing your activities for several months, I discussed it with a group of women editors and I am concerned by your edits. Nationality is a fairly recent occurrence in the scheme of history, and certainly for women, who did not, have nationality in their own right in the majority of countries in the world until the 20th century (in France 1927, the US 1922-1940, in Canada 1940, in Britain (and most of their colonies) until 1948, etc.) In many instances, they became stateless if they divorced a foreign spouse, i.e. Maymie de Mena. Add to those global women, numerous indigenous, colonized, and religious minorities, who clearly identified themselves more by their ethnic, racial, or spiritual beliefs than by the mainstream nationality, which often changed by the whim of war, that deprived them of their rights. Would you replace Cherokee with American? Aboriginal with Australian? Mayan with Mexican? Afro-Brazilian with Brazilian? What would you have us do with a stateless woman who was denied citizenship anywhere because she was of Jewish descent? Do you recognize that by changing these descriptors, their identity has been diminished and the context of being outside the mainstream culture has been removed from their biographies? Communities, even movements, fought long hard battles to be recognized legally for their identifying ethnicity, gender, race, religion to be validated and protected by law by numerous "nations". While I accept that you were making these changes in good faith, these edits are re-marginalizing people who you are identifying by an attribute which may or may not have been of any import to them. If we omitted nationality entirely it would not necessarily alter an encyclopedic discussion of their lives, thus, it should not be the focus of the lede. Thank you for your consideration. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of any ongoing discussion. So, nationality is, I agree, a recent occurrence, but placing people geographically is standard practice in encyclopedias, and since I am dealing specifically with American ethnicities in the lede, I am dealing almost exclusively with people from the nineteenth century and forward, by which time the concept of nationality had more or less become the normal means of geographical placement, certainly in the US. (In cases where this is fuzzy, I try to be careful about not mis-placing people into, say, nation-states that didn't exist when they were born.) If there are people who have said, "here is how I describe myself, first and foremost", and Wikipedia takes it as its mission to reflect that in the lede, I won't contest that. As I've said before, if the community consensus is that some particular person's article should be identified first and foremost with that person's race, I accept that judgment, and see a few narrow cases where that's probably actually good practice - I have not (and will not), for instance, changed the articles of people whose notability relies on their having been murdered for their race. The edits I've been making have been cases where ethnicity appears to clearly have been substituted in place of where we would typically put nationality - not to prop up the concept of the nation-state, but to give a commonsense geographical anchor. We could, instead of starting most articles with "Foo is an X Y", where X is nationality and Y is occupation, just start them with "Foo is a Y", but that seems like a very large-scale change that would really overcompensate for the narrow subset of cases that seems to be the primary concern you raise. As for what is marginalizing and what is not...I think there are cases to be made that "Foo is a [race] Y" is marginalizing, too, and MOS:ETHNICITY was intended to address precisely that possibility of marginalization. Chubbles (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "specifically ... American ethnicities ... almost exclusively with people from the nineteenth century and forward", this is a very broad, diverse swath of humanity, and if an editor isn't an academic who has a clear understanding of ethnicity in this region in this time period, they aren't well-suited to make sweeping changes ("drive-by editing"). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that this discussion has found a home under that heading; months ago, an editor expressed concerns about editing carelessly, and I changed how I edited in response. I am no longer "drive-by editing", but attempting to make a rather widely scaled change to comport with the MOS. I agree that this is a broad, diverse swath of humanity, which is ill-suited to be summed up with a simple statement of race (often unsourced) in the first sentence of the lede. Chubbles (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of discussion here of whether non Americans will understand or of American ethnicity, but in the rest of the world nationality and ethnicity don't always follow the borders on a map and are deeply personal and meaningful identities. I would presume this is true in the US as well and that changing the lead to remove existing identities would be just as problematic as adding identities where they should not be. At best, changing someones identity should go to the talk page unless it's a mistake or error which is clearly evidenced by something they have said or by the rest of the article and its citations. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 16:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree as well that this is a complex and multifaceted international issue. That's part of the reason why I started doing it. And I welcome talk page discussion for any cases where people think there is a need. I'm just not sure I see the value in preemptively assuming this will need a talk page discussion for everyone so tagged - again, there are both practical reasons to change it (confusion for non-US readers) and moral ones (the MOS, I believe, was worded as it is so that white Americans are not "an American X" and black Americans "a black X"). Chubbles (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that there is much confusion globally on American ethnicities, but if you have documentation for that, I would honestly be interested in reading it. In my personal experience, many non-US people have a far clearer understanding of US ethnicity and the implications it has caused people throughout history than US citizens do. Perhaps this is because as was said above for many Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Latinos, changing borders on a map were experienced with more regularity. Further, ethnic/gender history is rarely taught in US schools until the university level, so an understanding of the identity of groups of people outside the mainstream is limited. Many languages have similar constructs to African-American, (i.e. Noirs de France, schwarze Deutsche, Negrito mexicano), and English has many forms, i.e. Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Asian, etc., so the assumption that it is confusing does not appear to be a valid one. I would again caution that removing these without discussion is unwise. As you did not answer my question about whether or not you would remove indigenous identity, but have specifically said you are changing information on "American" biographies, I am again curious as to how you intend to work with tribal affiliations, Chicano identity, etc.? As was also said above, unless you are an expert in the field, (or wrote the article or even read the sources), what are you basing your removal upon? I do not wish to make assumptions and am truly interested in your reply, as you made the assertion that ethnicity is largely uncited. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I worry that the conversation here implies that I have a grand, large-scale vision for how identity should be treated on Wikipedia that I am trying to put into effect, and I want to express that I am emphatically not trying to do that. What I am trying to do here is much more humble - it is merely to change the introduction of ethnic/racial categories in ledes to comport with both traditional encyclopedic style (here and in other general encyclopedias) and to our own manual of style. I didn't and do not have any intention of editing beyond the United States, mostly because there are so many US articles with ethnic/racial categories stated at the start of the lede that would take me many months to get through them all; one pile at a time. (I support the MOS having international consistency about how we do things like this, but I am only one person, and of necessity have to leave it to others to implement that consensus more broadly. The question of how to identify members of indigenous groups, I am happy to leave entirely to interested editors.) There is a broad, general norm of anchoring people geographically at the start of encyclopedia articles; most Wikipedia articles (and Britannica articles, and New Grove articles, etc.) do this, and by convention do so with nationality.

It sounds like a lot of what may be objectionable is my copious use of the word "nationality" in the edit summaries, which perhaps makes it sound as if this is an inherently nationalist endeavor (in defense of nationalism as a concept or American nationalism in particular). It is neither. It is intended merely to be in keeping with standard encyclopedic geographic placement, and it is certainly an easy change for me to adjust the edit summaries to decentralize nationality. When a race or an ethnicity is put in the place where, by convention, a reader expects to see nationality/geographic anchoring, there is at least potentially conceptual confusion there - is the subject an American born in Africa, or American-born of African heritage? I think it's best to be unambiguous about that whenever possible; certainly, many international readers are keenly aware of American socio-ethnic divisions, but not (nearly) all of them are. Beyond that, the MOS discourages us from placing a subject's ethnicity or race in the lede unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. When is it relevant? Well, I don't think that it's relevant for (e.g.) every black American to have race mentioned in the lede - if consensus is that it is, we should change the MOS. But I am happy to leave it to editors who work on such articles to decide when it is relevant enough to mention in the lede, consistent with the MOS. My focus has specifically been just on the first sentence of the lede - really, just on the statement "Foo is an X Y", leaving aside latter clauses of the first sentence as well. If the race or ethnicity is mentioned elsewhere in the lede, I don't remove it, and sometimes, if I think editors are likely to believe it is relevant, I move it from first-off-the-bat to later in the lede, or link a term indicating the subject's race in the lede. For articles with more than a one-sentence lede, it's often the case that race is already in the lede two or three times; most of the time, if a removal is occurring, it's typically in single-sentence ledes (and is usually mentioned in the body of the text, again, where the MOS generally recommends putting it). Since race/ethnicity is a sensitive biographical topic, the fact that it is so often unsourced (and without photograph) strikes me as plausible reason to remove it entirely if it is not sourced, but I have not to this point used that rationale in my edit summaries. I want to say, again, that I welcome discussion of any particular cases on article talk pages; I accept there will be some pages where race will be seen as so central to a subject's notability that it is necessary to mention at the very outset of the article. Chubbles (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles, in my view, you just need to stop doing this en masse. These changes need to be considered on a case by case basis. As noted above, slow down, cowboy. many cases, the wording of the lede represents a carefully crafted compromise. For example, Was Marie Curie French or Polish? How about Chopin? These issues were fought out and wording chosen after intense talkpage discussion. (And don’t get me started on the battle royale over whether the horse Phar Lap was Australian or a New Zealander!) People’s identifiers begin with how they want to be known today — or if deceased both in their time and how historic assessment views them now— which may have changed. And this is not just in the USA. Certainly you also must realize that National boundaries change over time, and sometimes recognition of people’s ethnicity varies depending on the sources used in a given timeframe. Unless you understand the individual situation for a particular article, it can be harmful to the accuracy of an article to either apply or remove ethnic identifiers wholesale. So just don’t do this sort of drive by edit. There are many other things that need work here. Please leave this one be unless you see a particular article with a particular problem. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, this sure has suddenly attracted a lot of attention. =) I have slowed down, and I am not simply removing without any consideration in a drive-by fashion. I have concentrated on a particular subset of articles with a particular problem, and I've tried to address it very narrowly. I wish we were talking about particular articles with particular problems, but only a couple of talk-page conversations have ensued from my efforts; and now all of a sudden, there's a chorus of "stop!" here today. But I don't think anything I'm saying here is unreasonable - there are confusion problems, MOS problems, and undue weight problems that ensue from these designations, and I think it's valuable to address them. The only way to do so is article by article, which is what I'm doing - mind you, I don't change every page I find! (That work is hidden, because it leaves no edit trace.) Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it to seem as if anyone is attacking you, as I said, I avoid conflict. I have mentioned the issue over several months with various editors. When it hit my watchlist again today, I literally decided I could no longer be silent. As for "traditional encyclopedic style", looking at them as an example for how to treat people who would never have appeared in their pages to begin with does not seem relevant. As it is well documented that women and diverse ethnic makeup are lacking in WP editor profiles, having a MOS designed by people who do not include those demographics is also problematic. Erasing a part of someone's identity to tag them with a geographical location is problematic, as it removes the cultural context for understanding why they were notable. (A mainstream society member earning a degree in 1933 might not be notable, but someone earning one in a place where they were previously barred from doing so, is likely notable for their achievement.)

While I appreciate that you said you have slowed down, I think you are missing the main point. You are claiming ethnicity is unsourced and is irrelevant to notability in most cases. I postulate in the reverse. It is sourced in all of the articles in which I have contributed (if it is stated), and yet, you are removing it. Ethnic/gender/racial experience was different from white Americans and thus their notability is indeed impacted by the legal differences that constricted their lives in the historical and cultural context of when they lived. And for the record, you still haven't answered my question about indigenous people or ethnic groups other than African-American. Are you solely evaluating articles on African-Americans? SusunW (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issue was secondary and was not something I was actively taking into account, but perhaps it should be; again, my concerns are with confusion, the MOS, and undue weight. So, even when it is sourced, perhaps it should be moved to another place in the article (another place in the lede, even); I never remove it when a racial or ethnic designation is immediately sourced with a cited footnote, though I've moved it a couple of times in those cases. So, I can understand the concern about erasure, but I think there's a complementary concern about singling out that's reflected in the current MOS guidelines, and it's something that happens to black Americans far more on Wikipedia than anyone else - than any other ethnic or racial group, so far as I can tell. I looked into how many ledes started with Asian-American, Latino-American, Hispanic-American, white American, European American, Arab-American: there were not many of these; of them, Asian-American was the most prominent, with maybe a hundred examples. African-American was present over 3,000 times. That's why so many of my edits have specifically involved black Americans - it's a reflection of large-scale trends in how Wikipedians have ended up wording their articles. Like I said, I am happy to leave entirely the wording of ledes for persons with indigenous heritage to editors with specific interest in evaluating that topic - it's different in kind from what I was doing here, and I trust the consensus others forge on it. Chubbles (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions page does not suggest you are slowing down. It is filled with first sentence of lede typically identifies nationality, rather than race as the edit summary, and there are many per day. That doesn't suggest a slow and case by case basis for reviewing each article. You have likely not seen a lot of people taking it to the talk page because it does appear as if you are racing through it and that there is no point in trying to stop you page by page. I was sufficiently gobsmacked that it took me a few days to react. It does come across as if you have a particular ax to grind on this one. If today's list is an example of you going slow I can't imagine how you researched previously to know whether or not the subject's identity was connected to their notability. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 20:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do use more or less the same edit summary for edits that do more or less the same thing. I happened to do quite a few more than usual a few days ago, on account of having nothing to do - surely we can all sympathize. That's not to say they were mindless; I just had more time to devote to it. As for axes...well, like I said above, I wanted to try and do this in a way that made as few people angry as possible, and that, I see now, is failing. I'm willing to change how I edit if it improves the articles; I've been up front about that since I was first contacted about this. So what I'd like to do is invite you all to two articles I will try and reword in a way I hope addresses your concerns and also comports with the MOS - I'll edit them right after posting this, and then probably hang it up for the day, since this has been a lot of writing! I'm choosing what I think of as more-or-less boilerplate examples of what I was trying to do, and get your input, and see whether and how I should further change how I operate in this realm. Please join me, in a little while, at the talk pages of Walter Latham and B Angie B. Chubbles (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about today, not a few days ago. I won't say you can't possibly be reading all the details to go through that many that quickly but if today was an example of slower then I do worry about previous ones. And you are the one making the judgement about undue weight being given without, potentially, giving it due research. You seem to be making very personal decisions about where you think the wording should be based on your estimation of its value whether there is a citation or not. Perhaps now would be a good time to stop entirely, step back and away from this particular topic and edit something else for a while. You may not have wanted to get into contentious editing but it is clearly not the case, this is a very subjective and upsetting topic for a lot of people. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's my hope that the two examples I just started with can be an introduction to my better addressing when and how to do such edits in a way that will be acceptable to the voices raised here. Chubbles (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the examples Chubbles. Looking at Latham's article, it is largely sourced to his own website and he does not mention his ethnicity, so at this point it would appear to be original research to include his ethnicity. However, almost every independent article I can find in a quick websearch mentions his race,[1], [2], [3],[4], [5] and further that his accomplishment is even more notable because of the racial skew of the entertainment industry.[6]. That seems to say to me, that it should indeed be in the lede. Perhaps if this is an area you want to focus on, improving sourcing would be of more benefit that random edits that remove ethnicity. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I::I don't understand the logic of removing the reference to him being African American and then putting in that his clients were? That seems to make even less sense. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that he himself is African-American wasn't removed - it was just transferred to the body of the text. I think it's entirely reasonable to note in the lede that his business focuses on a black clientele, but it felt sort of duplicative to say in that sentence that he himself is African-American and that he also works principally with African-American entertainers. It could be done, of course. Chubbles (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the discussions at the two pages have more or less concluded, or at least the drive is to continue them here, if at all. They've been very helpful to me in illustrating the differences in our approaches; I hope this is true for you all as well. I can see a few things I will certainly carry forward with me. I've inadvertently sown a lot of confusion by fronting the issue of nationality in my edit summaries, and I will refrain from doing so. I see there is a strong desire to keep ethnic or racial identification on pages somewhere if they are not in the lede, and while I don't know that there were a ton of examples of my edits resulting in total removal, I will ensure I don't do so unless there is a strong BLP reason to. It also seems like some of the larger questions of balance and emphasis sometimes grow out of the simple present status of ledes that are underdeveloped (and, perhaps following from this, articles themselves that are underdeveloped). Duly weighing race or ethnicity in a lede oftentimes requires more than a one-sentence lede on which to hang the explanation of the context that makes it appropriately relevant to include there (per the MOS). The Latham article, I think, is a good case of this - for his race to make sense to be included in the lede, it's first necessary to have an explanation of why it is important in the context of the work he does (of what makes him notable). I still think it makes more sense to highlight what he does rather than what he is as part of that (granting that they are, of course, not independent, and given that saying both in the same sentence feels oddly repetitive), but it's a minor point of emphasis that I don't have all that much concern about. Lastly, I have tended to to these edits in batches, when I have large blocks of free time, but I don't have to edit that way. One thing I'd probably like to put on my to-do list is a little sprucing up of the B Angie B article at some point in the future, since the article is woefully underfed and I may have one or two resources on hand to fix it up, though I'll be happy to get back to more gnome-like editing. Chubbles (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how this is VANDALISM when this is a legitimate band from the 90s

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_khp5RcLigTVHQQ4PULKuDmicoL3yiUF1A

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kKLt3VF7aEscnsNkIMwcCm10Kq0hyY5cQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletfreak224veelogs (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	For your excellent work at Gospel Music Association. Thanks for rescuing an article that got lost in a bad process! Toa Nidhiki05 15:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand your perspective better now that the dust has settled from another round of deletion discussions (in which I moved about 25 articles off the Cleanup Listing in one week). I see by your Talk page that you have been busy, so maybe those discussions caught you at a bad time. During the next round I hope I don't see the kind of behavior I saw in the previous one. Rather than take an adversarial approach, which I have discussed with you before, why not explain to me why it's important to you to "save" articles. I understand your dislike of Wikipedia's criteria for creation, deletion, notability, and so on. You have written about a preference for articles of "cultural value" or "cultural significance". Can you tell me specifically why you feel the need to vote "keep by default" every time an article is proposed for deletion? Do you believe literally that Wikipedia must include every fact, every person on Earth? I suspect not, but you have quoted that "all knowledge" line many times as a justification. My questions aren't rhetorical, figurative, sarcastic, or gotcha questions. You can count on me to be honest, direct, and blunt. I would like to reach some kind of clear, calm, moderate, rational, balanced, mature understanding.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not interested in starting another acrimonious 20,000-word conversation with you about our differing philosophies. You know where I stand (I have exhausted myself explaining it); our conversations, at this point, are merely theater for other people to understand those positions. I am seeking to interact with you as little as possible; I only step in when I see genuine errors or what I believe to be destructive editing. Chubbles (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see them as theater, because I'm not performing, nor do I see you as a performer. I take your views seriously. I have to. I'm not looking for profound philosophical inquiry, and you don't have to write 20,000 words or become acrimonious. You can't give me a brief explanation of your objections off the top of your head? Is "keep" your default position for every deletion discussion in jazz or are you saying you are no longer going to participate in them? I'm giving you another chance, here and now, and it's in your interest to take advantage of it. In the here and now. Talk really is the foundation of Wikipedia.Vmavanti (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you put "save" in quotation marks? I dislike this metaphor, and it does not accurately describe how I think about the encyclopedia-building process. In fact, none of the exaggerations in your opening statement here accurately reflect how I think about the encyclopedia-building process. You're caricaturing me from the start. This conversation is not a good-faith process. If you want to give me another chance, you have to start by not assuming that my position is ridiculous. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I exaggerated in my opening remarks here? I'm not assuming your position is ridiculous. In fact, I asked you to clarify it, and you refused. What more can I do? If people refuse to talk to me, I'm going to make my own judgments. I'm using a word (save) that many people on Wikipedia use in regard to deletion. They call themselves "inclusionist". They make lists of articles on their home pages with "I created this" and "I did this" as though they were children tacking finger paintings onto the refrigerator. This extraordinary behavior conflicts with the collective, democratic nature of Wikipedia in which private property doesn't exist. There is no "mine" or "yours". So then why do deletion discussions become so personal? Why does anyone want to prevent an article from being deleted if it's obviously not much of an article and fairly obviously lacking in copious sources? If the word "save" is wrong, then what word would you use? Thank you for responding.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not hear the sneer in your own voice when you suggest I (we?) have emotional responses to editing Wikipedia akin to children fingerpainting? Can you not hear the obvious hyperbole when you ask if I "believe literally that Wikipedia must include every fact, every person on earth"? Can you not hear the dishonesty when, two sentences later, that your questions aren't "rhetorical, figurative, sarcastic, or gotcha"? Nothing has changed in the four years of conversations I've had with you - I explain myself, and then you distort it and deride a straw-man argument that you attribute to me. I'm not interested in a conversation with someone who isn't willing to listen with enough of an open mind to take my positions seriously, even if he comes to disagree in the end. Maybe you should start by re-reading our (copious) prior correspondence, with new ears. Chubbles (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading between the lines. You either intentionally or unintentionally misread what I have written. I'm talking about words. Literal, actual words. You're talking about tone. That's interpretation. I have talked about this over and over in several places. I believe the problem is partially cultural. Lynne Murphy has written a book about this. English people pepper their usual conversation with sarcasm and irony, so English people are always on guard for it, always looking for opposite meanings, a hidden agenda, something below the surface, excessively sensitive to nuances and subtle jabs. That's not true of Americans. We're not like that. I have gone to great lengths to make myself plain. That's an American way of talking and writing. But some people might see stating the obvious as condescension. I really resent the accusation of dishonesty. I can show you examples of administrators resorting to rhetorical speech, and I can show you how my words differ from theirs. You are the one who refuses to discuss in good faith. If you won't believe the words I use, then what chance have I got? Or anyone else? Why bother communicating? Why not use emoticons? Aren't they the modern version of hieroglyphics? Yes, that's exaggeration, but there's some truth in it, isn't there? Why the lack of confidence in words? These aren't joke questions. I've studied language my whole life. I have worked in places that rely on the proper, precise use of language. I take these matters seriously.

Let's look at specifics. Have you not repeatedly said to me and others that you believe Wikipedia should include "all knowledge"? I'm sure I can find places if you need proof. Well...what does that mean? What do you think it means? Are you denying that people all over Wikipedia make lists of articles they created and they worked on? I can show you proof. Are you denying they are proud of such lists? Are you denying such lists might go against some of the rules and aims of Wikipedia? I have shown proof. Do I make fun of it? Yes! That's humor. Are you denying that some people divide themselves into two camps: deletionist and inclusionist? I can show proof. I have discussed that before, too. Do I make fun of it? Yes! That's humor. Are you denying that in a recent deletion discussion you wrote "keep by default". I can show it to you. What does it mean? That you will always vote to prevent an article from being deleted? If so, why? You wrote it, man. You explain it. Writing ambiguous comments and refusing to explain them doesn't help anyone. It's fair play to ask for clarity. That's one reason I discourage people from relying excessively on acronyms. They hinder communication. I believe these are fair questions. You interpret them as mistreatment. I certainly don't intend it that way. I would rather you work with me than against me. I have seen you write excellent prose in articles, and I believe you are capable of more than you have been doing. That's a compliment, not an insult. I do expect you to take my words seriously and consider them without questioning my motives. What motives do you think I have? Sure, my comments may involve some hard analysis and change in one's thinking and behavior. So what? I'm not asking you to jump off a bridge or give me your credit card number. They're just words. Words, words, words, said the melancholy Danish prince....
Vmavanti (talk)

I want to be sure that I answer exactly, and only, what you're asking me, so that it ends as quickly as possible. You asked the following:

1. Whether I believe that all knowledge should be on Wikipedia. This appears to be a reference to a famous quotation from Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." It is the animating principle behind Wikipedia, even if we fail to live up to it, or come to a consensus that it should be abandoned. At this point, it's probably more aspirational than anything else - it has little relation to the everyday work of encyclopedia-building, and the devil's in the details of how one defines "knowledge", a contested term. So answering "do you believe in this" is not a simple yes-or-no question.
2. Whether people all over Wikipedia make lists of articles they created and worked on. Yes, they do this. (This is, no doubt, partly in reference to my own userpage, which you have taken a particularly heavy-handed interest in for many years.)
3. Whether people are proud of such lists. Yes, I am sure some of them are.
4. Whether such lists might go against some of the rules and aims of Wikipedia. No, I don't think so. We require that people not take ownership of articles they create and work on, but it's unreasonable to say they shouldn't feel some sense of personal accomplishment in having contributed as volunteers to a laudable group effort. Expressing that sense of accomplishment in a publicly-accessible list is an acceptable outlet.
5. Whether I deny that some people sort themselves into inclusionist and deletionist philosophies. No, I do not deny this. (Who denies this??)
6. Whether I used the phrase "Keep by default" in a recent deletion discussion. Yes, I did, two or three times.
7. What does it mean? It means that, when a deletion discussion is started, the nominator must provide a valid rationale for deletion. In absence of a valid rationale, the discussion should default to a keep decision unless and until a valid rationale is provided. You did not provide a valid rationale for deletion at the start of those discussions.
8. Will I always vote to keep an article at AfD? No.

I am humoring your interrogation well beyond what I believe to be my responsibility here. I will continue to voice opinions at AfD when I believe it is warranted, and I would prefer any further discussion be done at those junctures rather than continuing interminably here. Chubbles (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What really pisses you off is that a dumb American like me has repeatedly annihilated your arguments for years and demonstrated how you have been playing by your own set of rules. Now others, on this very page, are starting to say the same thing. I wonder where that will lead. I'm not going to respond to your lies, false accusations, and exaggerated rhetoric. The only reason you are still on this site is pure luck.Vmavanti (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How lucky I am, to have an American like you watching over me so closely and letting me know when I overstep my boundaries. Chubbles (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rollie Culver requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Nightvour (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable musician

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. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dennis Budimir. I don't know if you are a friend of his or what, but we usually omit albums that are "not on label" and "self-released". Stick to "official" releases. It's impossible to include every vanity project people are involved in. It is also disadvantageous because it waters down real accomplishment that comes from submitting one's work to the scrutiny of a group outside oneself, as in a record label or publishing house. Wikipedia does not exist to feed the egos of subjects or editors. If you haven't read my User page in a while, I have some helpful information there. Cryptic edit summaries help no one.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not usually omit from discographies full-length albums that are self-released. Such albums are nonetheless official releases. Chubbles (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably false. What do you mean by "full length"?
Vmavanti (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studio albums. For jazz musicians, usually live albums, as well. Chubbles (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redundant term. "Full length" album doesn't add anything but confusion to "album". Full length as opposed to what? Partial length? What's a partial length album? A studio album is an album. A live album is an album. Probably an EP is an album, though I have rarely seen jazz EPs. I don't enter 78s in discographies on WP. At Discogs.com I have seen CD-Rs and FLAC entries. Those have to be dealt with individually. Fortunately they are the exception rather than the norm. I suspect the term "album" came into use in the 1950s with LP, long play in contrast with 78s which might have four songs on them. This is something I talked to Eddie about when I started editing in Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just semantics - if you prefer, yes. Such albums are nonetheless official releases. Chubbles (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not semantics. Words have meanings or they don't. Editors ought to be able to use words accurately and precisely. "Full length album" is meaningless.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you, man. If you want me to say "studio album" instead of "full-length album", fine. Studio albums. Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you had stopped creating stubs. Is that correct?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. Chubbles (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...may I please have a little further insight into the removal of a helpful sentence from the lede? The source I provided was, as far as I can determine, the original. I believe The presence of the same sentence on Allmusic shows merely that the writer of that bio picked it up later...without attribution. Thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see that Allmusic is, in this case, plagiarizing from the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which I was able to find in "snippet view" on Google Books. From Wikipedia's standpoint, though, it's still verbatim from another source, and so is still a copyright issue - it would have to be properly introduced and formatted as a quotation to meet our attribution requirements (and the attribution requirements of any journalistic or scholarly community). I'll make an adjustment to get the sentence to fit those requirements. Chubbles (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Thanks for your consideration. Rory1262 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's not the other way around? Encyclopedia of Popular Music plagiarizing from AllMusic?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I observe, the Allmusic entry is credited just to "Allmusic" -- not to any specific staff member, as is typically the case. It's a thumbnail sketch without any attribution. The way it's crafted is like a wiki without standards. Rory1262 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at fortifying the attribution, in the vein of what Chubbles did with the lead. Let me know if the tag may now be removed. Thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the Encyclopedia is derived from AMG, or that both entries were written by the same person. They're both reputable sources, and it would be pretty heinous to find out that the Encyclopedia was cribbing from AMG without permission, but perhaps they did have permission. I can't say for sure. Ultimately, from our standpoint, it's immaterial - we can't take verbatim material without attribution. Rory, close paraphrasing still can't be used even if it's prefaced with the name of the source. There are two options: one can either preserve the exact quote and place it within quotation marks (so that it's clear exactly what is repeated from that source), or completely reword the sentences, in a way that imparts the information but does not resemble the original phrasing. You may want to take a look at WP:PARAPHRASE for more information. Chubbles (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will turn to this when I have a chance to revisit the sources. Rory1262 (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's it look now? I established direct quotations in many places, and otherwise the article had been using rewording that was not patterned on the origina sources. Rory1262 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's better - I'm not going through the sources with a fine-toothed comb, but I will take it on good faith that you're doing the legwork here, and you got the ones I noticed. As a matter of style, I don't think it's usually recommended to rely this heavily on quotations to fill out the prose of a biography, but it at least solves the narrower problem of adherence to the policies and guidelines around copyright and attribution. Chubbles (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bruce Forman
Vmavanti (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics."
Vmavanti (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! Glad we are on the same page, and can see that Williamson should have an article and so should be on the dab page. Chubbles (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain how you determined he is notable? Maybe I can use the same method. Thanks. No, this isn't a joke. When you say "should", how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Vmavanti (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson is listed at WP:MET, a project which has sought to ensure Wikipedia's coverage matches those of major music encyclopedias. His listing there indicates that he has an entry in at least one major music encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know that one source isn't enough.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one gets into a major music encyclopedia never having been written up in other sources. Chubbles (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason. It's an assumption. You ought to know the difference. You learned in school that one source isn't enough. EddieHugh has said it and so have I, many times, but you ignore us and you ignore the rules after how many years of editing on Wikipedia. Ten? What can you tell me about Bruce Williamson off the top of your head?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a reason. Encyclopedias are by their very nature tertiary sources; they are built on other secondary sources. It's not rational to allege that an article in this encyclopedia is unlikely ever to be written when it appears in another major music encyclopedia. No rules have been broken or ignored; I am, in fact, following them as specified in DABRL. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point. One assumes that all encyclopedias use multiple, reliable sources, and therefore any name in any encyclopedia is going to follow Wikipedia's definition of notability. Although it may be true in some cases, I wouldn't call it a fact or reliable iron rule. You can call the rules of Wikipedia irrational if you want, some of them probably are, but the particular one I mentioned is rational and it makes obvious sense. It does get in the way of desire and self-interest, which are hardwired into the human system, but it's obvious some subjects are so obscure that an article will never be written. This can be ascertained before an article is created, thus preventing a lot of time and effort being wasted on impossible AfDs. In the past it's been easier to create an article than delete one, but that seems to be changing. It's obvious that jazz is a niche subject even within the category of music. We're talking about less than 1% of sales. Very much the fringe. We're lucky to have any jazz articles at all. Many of the names you've added are a niche within a niche, so obscure and insignificant that one needs an electron microscope to see them. Because of their obscurity, it's v. likely that little or nothing has been written about them—which means an article, a real article, can't be written and never will be. To approach the subject apart from the MOS rule I quoted is to engage in wishful thinking. That's not work, and it doesn't help. It's hope and faith. If you want that, go to church.

Second, I don't have access to the sources that every encyclopedia uses. That impedes the ability to write an article. Therefore it's wrong to say that if a subject appears in one encyclopedia it ought to appear in another, in Wikipedia, and is notable. New Grove uses sources that I can't use. Therefore New Grove shouldn't be used as the solitary indicator in deciding whether to create an article.

Third, a single tertiary source is still a single source, and it remains true and has been stated to you repeatedly over ten years that one source of any kind isn't enough.

Four, I'm troubled that you can't tell me anything about Bruce Williamson off the top of your head. This suggests impulsivity rather than reflection when it comes to creating articles. If a subject is notable, we don't have to dig and scrounge for sources. That's really missing the point of notability. It's fairly obvious who is and isn't notable. It shouldn't be made complicated or turned into philosophical hair splitting.

Five, What's going on here is reminiscent of the Procrustean bed, if you are familiar with that item from Greek mythology.

Six, I'm a little tired of the Zelig routine where you appropriate someone else's rhetoric and use it (often incorrectly) because you think it will bolster your case. It doesn't work. Honesty is better.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I don't think it's constructive for you to be spending hours trying to convince me Williamson isn't worth writing an article about. Have a look at Grove; he's in there. It'd save you a lot of time over spilling another 3,000 characters here. It's all we need (and it is not all there is). I followed DABRL in adding him to the dab page, and he still meets the criteria for being listed on it. Chubbles (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sources does New Grove use for Bruce Williamson?
Vmavanti (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if you decided to amass sources so as to write an article for Williamson that meets your strictures. Grove is available to you at any library with a good music section, or online for a small fee. I trust you know other places you can look. Chubbles (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think finding sources for articles is constructive? You don't think following Wikipedia's rules is constructive? What about your rules? You just said "Have a look at Grove; he's in there", so you must know what sources New Grove used. What are they? These are your words, your rules. What sources does New Grove use for Bruce Williamson? What sources are you using? Those are everyday questions on Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a simple, defensible, logical thing by adding Williamson's name to the dab page. I pointed to MOS guidelines that defend it. I do not deserve to be ceaselessly browbeaten over this. I would like this conversation to end. Chubbles (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acting insulted is a tired tactic. Why can't you answer these simple questions? They are the kinds of questions that get asked on Wikipedia every day. What sources does New Grove use for Bruce Williamson? What can you tell me about him? Can you tell me if you do anything for the jazz project other than create stubs and participate in AfDs?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you cannot answer the kinds of simple questions editors ask and answer every day, would you consider contributing outside the jazz project exclusivley? Otherwise, I would have to consider a topic ban.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation started with your quoting DABRL in relation to Williamson's presence on a dab page. I demonstrated that Williamson meets the criteria in DABRL to be listed. You're spending all of this time apparently trying to convince me that Williamson isn't notable, but that's not going to work; I'm quite confident that being in Grove by itself clears the threshold, and this strategy is not the way you act if you want people to do things for you at the expense of their own time and efforts. I don't believe you are in good faith badgering me about sourcing for the purpose of writing Williamson an article - it sounds like you're trying to prove something about how bad an editor I am instead. If you're going to do that, please do it somewhere else. Chubbles (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I'm going to seek a topic ban. This is your method of operation, which I and others have become well acquainted with. While I have accommodated you and changed my methods, you have not budged an inch. You change the subject. You make up your own reasons for doing things. You make up your own rules. You repeat yourself. You act insulted and say you don't want to talk. You try to blame me. You point the finger. You run to other people and complain. You refuse to answer simple, obvious, specific, relevant questions about editing. You refuse to engage in debate for consensus. There are two people working on a 12 year backlog of 4000 articles, and instead of helping, you make the problem worse by creating more work. If you think I'm the problem, why don't you take a long, honest look at your own Talk page, at the comments others have made to you? Do you think all of us wrong every time and you are right? Your assertion "I'm quite confident that being in Grove by itself clears the threshold" is an article of faith that has been proven false over and over by me and EddieHugh and others. Look at all the stubs and orphans you have created. There is no such thing as one, holy, absolute, infallible source. One source is never enough for an article. Every sentence I just wrote demonstrates that you haven't been acting in good faith and that I have. I answer questions. You don't. I follow the rules. You don't. I engage on Talk pages. You don't. I improve Wikpiedia. You don't. I shrink the Wikipedia backlog. You don't. I solve problems. You create them.
Vmavanti (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic
Vmavanti (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the mountain made from this molehill. Well, I tremble at the thought of having to defend all my worthless work in front of the tribunal. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about doing work exclusively outside the jazz project? It might seem like a "restriction" until you consider just how big Wikipedia is.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I tremble at the thought". Do you think this is a mature response? Is it helpful in any way?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles. I notice that you keep removing my edits on the Isiah Toothtaker page. I'm trying my best to make sure that what I'm writing is correct and above board, but clearly not quite getting it right. I believe that it's important to have this information on the page, so could you perhaps assist in properly wording the information, or informing me of what needs to be done for it to remain live? I'm not adding anything to the page that isn't a statement of fact; allegations have been made and the events are currently still unfolding, how do I fairly depict that? I'm making sure to not include any sort of bias or opinion on the matter, purely stating the events that have unfolded. He has been accused by many people of abuse, this much is undeniably true, and so that is surely relevant to a Wikipedia page about him? I am making no comment on whether or not he is guilty of these accusations simply stating that they have been made. I'm also curious about why the title keeps being changed from "sexual abuse allegations" to "sexual misconduct allegations" when the former is a far more accurate description of the said allegations. Thanks in advance, Hamobil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamobil (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heroes (band). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Heroes (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed several articles where you removed the ethnicity, or moved it to a later sentence where it was indicated to be of secondary importance. That these were all African-Americans was possiblly a mere coincidence. Especially as being and promoting themselves as African-American was of prime importance to their identity and notability.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring more biographies into line with MOS:ETHNICITY, which, as you note, only recommends including race or ethnicity in the lede when it is relevant to notability. In the case of the two Wilsons, which appear to be the motivation for your comment, I did not remove ethnicity from the lede since, as we agree, ethnicity is relevant to the reasons for their notability. However, the MOS recommends identifying them by nationality or place of birth at the outset, for a variety of good reasons; my edits sought to detangle nationality from ethnicity, while still giving appropriate weight to the ethnicity by retaining its prominence in the lede. Placing that identification in the second sentence of the lede, I believe, does not make it of secondary importance; rather, it makes it quite prominent - more so than for most cases, but appropriate for these specific examples. Chubbles (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Simpson, just wanted to make sure you understood my rationale and the guidelines I'm following here. I can make note of this in the edit summaries. Chubbles (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had read your rationalization, and do not agree with it. That is not the actual meaning nor intent of MOS:ETHNICITY. I've been involved in ethnicity discussion here since 2005, and at one point was a significant contributor to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Moreover, all African-Americans are Americans. African-Americans are not lesser Americans. There is no need to distinguish them as Americans who are also African-American, under the pretense that these are separate things. That is insulting. Furthermore, saying American instead of African-American caused the Google search inset to include images of non-African-Americans in the Images, such as a (slavic?) picture from "instagram big boobs" advertisement.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a personal note: I am not African-American, but am proud to have been a professional musician who played in the Detroit scene with Motown musicians in the early 1970s. So I'm especially cognizant of whitewashing African-American contributions to music.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've looked more closely at your Talk page, I'll note that you've already had many other editors asking you to stop this same activity earlier this year, under the topic "Drive-by editing."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot to address here. I'm happy to read any documentation from previous discussions, but the intent of MOS:ETHNICITY, and the removal of the ethnicity parameter entirely from infoboxes, seems pretty clear; as a general guideline, we identify people by race when, and at the point where, it is contextually relevant to do so. Very first thing in the article is not that place - it singles (some) people out by race, in the place where an encyclopedia article (not just ours, but other general encyclopedias) typically neutrally locates people in place and time (with a birthdate and a birthplace or country of origin, rather than a racial category). There's nothing insulting about distinguishing national categories from racial categories qua categories - these are very important things not to conflate, in fact. Putting a racial category where a nationality is expected (as, again, is common across encyclopedias) treats them as equivalent, which is fundamentally troubling. It's also potentially confusing to non-American readers, who may think she was born in Africa. The image issue is straightforward - we are not Google, and if there are a lot of people with the last name Wilson, there's not much we can or should do in terms of SEO to try and trick the algorithm into showing what we think is the most important photo. I don't know that this change would do much, and it doesn't strike me as a good IAR rationale for ignoring all these other concerns. The best thing we can do to fix that problem, such as it is, is to have images for these musicians; Edith Wilson has one, and it'd be great to get one for Lena. I certainly don't think it's whitewashing to wait all the way until the second sentence of the article to mention her ethnicity, but I can word it in a way that makes it sound like it is less incidental - that's a reasonable request. And I certainly wasn't impugning your credentials - I'm not sure what gave you that impression, and I don't question that you edit in earnest. Yes, I have had conversations with a number of editors who have expressed concerns, and I have changed my editing style a number of times as a result. I'm oftentimes doing a fair bit of work on the articles as I go now, as you can see from my Edith Wilson edit, and my activity on her article is not, I assure you, of a drive-by nature. Chubbles (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't meant to leave this be for so long - got busy enough to not be logging in regularly - but I'd like to attempt a conciliatory edit soon. Chubbles (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Friscia & Lamboy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Extremely undersourced article about a topic of questionable notability

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. —S Marshall T/C 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drew Gress 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/Drew Gress 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying "these are needed articles" in your edit summaries. Your needs are not the needs of Wikipedia. From the documentation: "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics".
Vmavanti (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do no such thing, and I'll thank you not to police my language. Any subject that meets the notability guidelines is one we should have an article on, and I will continue both to link to them, consistent with our guidelines, and to refer to them, quite sensibly, as "needed articles". Chubbles (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you collect jazz records?
Vmavanti (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that, regardless of how I answer this question, it is groundwork being prepared for an ad hominem attack? Chubbles (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added foreign language expansion tags ("with text translated from") to many of the stubs you have created. Is there anything preventing you from writing those articles yourself with translated material? If there is nothing preventing you, why don't you do it?;
Vmavanti (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the language, among other factors. What is the immediate provocation for the question? Chubbles (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work on the cleanup listing. Take a look at the list and see whether you can improve the articles with the translation templates. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation requests are handled at WP:RFT, and the translation request process has changed quite a bit over time; it's much different than it was when I started editing. It looks like there is a pretty significant backlog of requests (no surprise), and I don't know how many people are actively contributing as translators. My experience from requesting translations is that, sometimes, they do get done, but it can take years for a translator to take interest. (It's possible that some editors work chronologically through the tag backlog, but I'm not sure that there's any coordinated effort to do that.) I can find maybe a dozen or so articles I've requested over the years that are still outstanding, which is actually fewer than I expected - I guess that's encouraging! Chubbles (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to thank you for creating my grand father's Wikipedia page (Jean-Claude Naude) in 2017. I'll probably translate it into French! Thanks again for him

Maricette (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for enthusiasm, but please discontinue editing the Thick Records wikipedia article. While I appreciate your interest, some of the added content (including where I went to college and names of 3rd part distributors) is irrelevant. I assure you that the content of the Thick Wiki article is current and accurate and has been for many years. Keep fighting the good fight. xoTHICKREX (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find the albums you added to the Chuck Maronhic discog?
Vmavanti (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic has listings for both. Where did you find the albums you added? Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chubbles! I am resurrecting an article about Tina Bell in my sandbox and wanted to ask if you wanted to collaborate on it. Hope you're safe and healthy! --Mssemantics (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mssemantics, thank you for the invitation. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it seems like it might be slightly more defensible to put up an article about the band rather than the lead singer. I'm guessing that contemporaneous coverage - any album or show reviews that might have been published in the Stranger, the Seattle Weekly, the P-I, etc. - would probably focus on the band as a whole. The digital archives of relevant publications are not very good, from what I can see, so digging up enough to survive at AfD might be tough without some archival sleuthing. (The current sources are a bit blog-heavy or incidental to the subject of Bam Bam and Bell.) Maybe if you have access to one of the major newspapers databases you can find more; sadly, I am no longer at school and do not have easy access to them any longer. I wonder if KEXP's archives might have more information. Sorry I can't be much more help with source unearthing, but if anything crosses my transom, I'll send it right along. Chubbles (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. I'll approach it that way. Thanks! --Mssemantics (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beacon (band) 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/Beacon (band) 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.

Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made some cuts to that article, as it was a little promotional and contained some direct paid edits. If I went too far, feel free to revert. I came there via this discussion. The paid editor is now blocked.--- Possibly (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Guinea pig for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chubbles! I'm not sure this is the right way to contact you or to ask a question, so please tell me if there's a better way.

I noticed that you removed a sentence I added to the Gil Coggins page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gil_Coggins). I added a sentence to the description about a memorial website created by Gil's brother. You can see my revision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gil_Coggins&oldid=1012498687

Thanks so much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoderbacher (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chubbles, Maybe I phrased the sentence incorrectly. Vassavussa.com is a site created and sponsored by Gil Coggins' family and his younger brother Willie. The site is much more informative than the current wikipedia page, and all the content is either directly from Gil Coggins or his family. Does that seem more appropriate? Dmoderbacher (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stallion (the band) who played at Leeds and Reading Festival in 1976 were not from America but were from Hastings, England and were the Melody Maker rock contest winners that year. Please check your facts and remove your wrong information. Digger (Stallion roadie).

I think you're talking about a different band. We can have an article about each band. Chubbles (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Edley Shine from Born Jamericans would like a to know if you help me to write a wikipedia. 96.255.119.212 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sorry to say I don't think I can contribute to an article that Mr. Shine is trying to write for himself. We strongly discourage this, and the reasons why are spelled out here and here. It's really much more preferable if an independent editor comes to the conclusion that Shine needs an article of his own, based on our criteria for inclusion. The article is likely to be deleted if it does not demonstrate, using reliable sources, that it meets at least one of those criteria, and if the article is written by Shine or with Shine's help, it's much more likely to get swiftly removed. Chubbles (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Unfamiliar to me and not found in New Grove, 'magadization' (linked form Voicing) doesn't seem to be mentioned at the redirect target. Can you supply a source? Sparafucil (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magadization is mentioned in the article voicing (music); I was following from the redirect for magadizing, which already led there. It's an older term, not in much current usage, but Google Books has some examples of usage (e.g., [7]). I'm on vacation and may be somewhat slow to reply. Chubbles (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very interesting! It was in fact the unlinked term in voicing that caught my attention. The harp Magadis has an article already, and it seems to have been verb-ified a by Aristotle, according to Wooldridge's footnote. In chaper III he returns to it: "We may of course suppose that the Greek practice of magadizing, in which as we have seen lies the fundamental principle of Polyphony, continued in the Latin Church … [but] we look in vain, in treatises by Christian writers down to the seventh century…" It would be interesting to learn whether any other musicologists have made use of the word, but it seems to me Organum is not as good a target as Ancient Greek music, don't you think? Sparafucil (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable; the content would just have to be added to that article. Chubbles (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit for the article. Thanks you. Likjams (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please I need your help on an article, can you leave me your email so I can reach you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbishbird89 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deidre McCalla 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/Deidre McCalla 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.

Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.