User talk:Anameisbutaname/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Jagger has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jagger was changed by Anameisbutaname (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851514 on 2013-11-16T11:32:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Martin Lippmann

Hello Anameisbutaname,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Martin Lippmann for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 11:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Anameisbutaname, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 16:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anameisbutaname, articles should be about notable subjects. They should be in newspapers, on independent reliable websites or books. Also, you are free to edit your user page, User:Anameisbutaname in the manner, than having an article about yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauzan (talk • contribs)

Non notable

Hi Anameisbutaname, Unless the Orchestra has achieved notability (in reliable indepth sources then I'm afraid the Orchestra cannot be added to the article, Continuing to add this could see you blocked, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, Before you undid my edits to the Boots UK page, did you look at the orchestra's independent reliable web site ? If not, please do so now, because I hope you will then reconsider your actions regarding my edits to the Boots UK page. In particular I hope you will agree not to undo them if I redo them again?

As the Orchestra has been giving concerts for charity since 1951, surely there can be no question about its "notability"?

The Orchestra's web site includes its history ever since it was started over 65 years ago, plus details about its up-coming concerts and many of its past concerts. I look forward to hearing from you again as soon as possible. Thanks in advance, Anameisbutaname. 18:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the website doesn't mean a thing, Given there's no results on Google News and given Boots themselves make no mention of this orchestra it's clearly not a notable orchestra and as such should not be reinserted in any way in that article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Davey2010, As well as being a member of the Boots Orchestra I am also its Webmaster. It is a fact that, except for short holidays at Easter, in the Summer and for Christmas/New Year, the orchestra holds its rehearsals weekly - every Tuesday evening - in a large conference room in Building D80 situated at the main Boots UK site in Beeston, Nottingham. Surely that fact proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Boots UK fully supports the orchestra just as they have always done since its inception? Re. your ststement that "Boots themselves make no mention of this orchestra", it would be stating the obvious to say that, as the Orchestra is neither a product nor a service delivered by Boots UK, there is no reason whatsoever for Boots UK to mention the orchestra on its business website. The Wikipedia page about Boots UK is not the Boots UK company's business website! Wikipedia is a Wiki site and that means sensible, reasonable and factual information can be added to it by anyone acting in good faith. In good faith I placed the details about the orchestra in the 'See also' section of Wikipedia's page about Boots UK. Placing the information in that section in no way interferes with the other sections of the page about the Boots UK company. In view of the orchestra's long and honourable history I must tell you that, for anyone to say "Unfortunately the website doesn't mean a thing" could certainly be regarded as a very serious insult to the orchestra and its members. In view of all these facts, to settle this unfortunate and unnecessary dispute in an amicable, sensible and reasonable manner, I hope you will now act in good faith by agreeing (a) not to undo the edits that I made and (b) that you will withdraw your threat to block me for making them. Thanks in advance, Anameisbutaname. 20:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anameisbutaname, and thanks for the heads-up on this.

I've had a quick look and I strongly advise you not to edit the article in question while I have a closer look. My initial impression is that there are faults on both sides, but unintended and I have not seen any breach of good faith, and that there may be a case for the edit you propose. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked Davey2010 to comment on the notability issue. It seems to me this is not the issue at all, and raising it is just confusing. There are subtle differences between notability and the standard of verifiability required for inclusion of material in an article. See also wp:weight. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss this further, Andrewa has come in with their size 9s thinking they know best so I'm done here as far as I'm concerned, Although I didn't mention it COI and the promo was a concern however I felt listing all 3 at once would've perhaps been more confusing but hey ho, I have no desire to discuss or argue this out further so Andrewa don't bother pinging me, Cheers. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This is disappointing, but I hope it will not need escalation. If Davey2010 now stays away from the article and discussion as I would hope, then there is no need for further discussion with them. (If on the other hand it continues to be an issue, I'd consider proposing an iban or tban, but cross that bridge only if we need to.)

Note also this revert (marked as a minor edit), and this subsequent edit to their talk page (I guess they may archive it but they haven't yet). As I said, I hope that this is now over, but if we needed to go to ANI that evidence would be relevant. The most important thing, of course, would be the refusal to discuss further above, which we should respect. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope - If I see anyone add any promo/coi/unsourced/non notable content as was done with this editor then I'm well within my rights to revert and go to their talkpage accordingly, I hadn't realised they replied but I was more than happy to resolve this with them,

Inregards to my talkpage - I'm entitled to remove any message on my talkpage as and when I please and given edit summaries should be descriptive I felt my edit summary was rather to the point, it could've been a lot worse!,

If the ANI thread was meant to "scare" me then sorry to disappoint but it has the opposite effect - If you feel my conduct has been that disruptive that it warrants a thread then please by all means start a new thread,

You may want to read up on what an WP:IBAN and WP:TBAN are as in this case these are both irrelevant and if you suggest these in the ANI thread you will to be blunt be laughed to the door!,

Like I said I will revert any editor who adds coi/promo content and obviously will visit their talkpage accordingly but for this editor I would hope they don't readd the same content. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The content should only be added if it is adequately sourced, and I hope I have made that clear. If it's sourced and COI is disclosed, there should be no problem.

The other issues you raise are better discussed on your own talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm more than happy for the content to added providing it's adequately sourced.

"The other issues you raise are better discussed on your own talk page." - Exactly so I don't quite know why you felt the need to bring this up in the first place but there we are. –Davey2010^Talk 12:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Response was I'm not sure how I'm supposed to follow up on that comment but I see this is another ANI threat so I'll simply remove my 2p from the talkpage and shall dewatch that page that way everyone's happy [1], see also their post at #"Threat" below. Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Background

I'm assuming that this refers to the Boots UK article, see [2] [3] [4] [5].

On the plus side, there's no breach of the 3RR. On the minus, the previous discussion seems to generally miss the point, and the links provided aren't very helpful. Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Other issues

See wp:COI. There seems adequate disclosure here.

But most important, see wp:primary source. The Orchestra's own website, for example, is of little value here (but not quite none). This is often challenged and/or misunderstood by new contributors, particularly those with a COI... but has never been successfully challenged as far as I know. Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Going forward

My recommendation that you do not edit the article stands for now. What we need is to find reliable secondary sources that support the material you wish to add.

I'll have a look when I find time, but probably you're better placed to find them than I am. Maybe suggest them here. Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, many thanks indeed for your time, your advice and everything else - it is very much appreciated.

At present, until I have some spare time to do more research, there is just one source I know of: it's on Wikipedia's page for 'The Brunts Academy' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brunts_Academy. I edited that at 17:13 on 20 November 2018‎, giving the reason: (Replaced obsolete URL for Boots Orchestra, Beeston, Nottingham by the correct current one: http://www.bootsorchestra.co.uk). The edit was necessary because the old link on that page was dead: it used to go to a personal website, hosted on the ISP Virginmedia, which had been set up by the Orchestra's last-but-one webmaster. He used it from about 2009 until about 2015 when he had to give up being webmaster on becoming ill. Then, unfortunately, he died. The next webmaster set up a subscription on GoDaddy to host the Orchestra's website and that is what is still in use today. I took over as webmaster last year in November.

As it has been there on Wikipedia's page for 'The Brunts Academy' for a long time, I hope that link is acceptable as a reliable secondary source? I have not yet had time to do more research to find out when the original link was put in as I would have to hunt through the many previous pages of revision history for that Wikipedia page for 'The Brunts Academy'.

I note that Davey2010 has not yet withdrawn his threat to block me so I won't attempt to re-insert my edits on the Boots UK page before I have had some more advice from you as to exactly how best to avoid being blocked for doing it. Anameisbutaname^Talk 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anameisbutaname, You're more than welcome to edit the article :), Given the fact you've been more than happy to work with everyone and discuss this no blocks will ever likely happen (had you ignored everyone and insisted on inserting the content then it might of been a different story) but yeah to answer your question you won't be reported or blocked. Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

To put this into context, they can't block you, they can only ask an admin to do it, which most often happens via the Administrators' Noticeboards, such as ANI. And an admin can only block you if it's in accordance with the blocking policy. So as long as you don't violate the behavioural guidelines, in theory you are quite safe.

On the other hand there are a lot of behavioural guidelines, and you do have a disclosed conflict of interest. I still advise you not editing the article directly for now. Instead, we should move this discussion to its talk page, and continue to look for sources, see below. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither the Wikipedia article nor the Boots Orchestra website are helpful, I'm afraid. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Andrewa. Because of your advice I'm getting a much better understanding of some of Wikipedia's policies.

Re: "... we should move this discussion to its talk page, and continue to look for sources ..," I'm not sure how best to move this discussion to Boots UK's Talk page. Perhaps I should just start a new section on there and copy the part of this discussion that follows below here into that new section?

If you could please advise me about that - or even, perhaps, do it for me so as to clear it from your own Talk page - that would be very helpful.

I now have two more questions, one about COI, the other about reliable sources. I apologise in advance for giving you so much text to read, but I hope it will be worthwhile and intersting for you...

First, the COI issue: As the Orchestra does not conflict with Boots UK - in fact it is supported by Boots UK - please could you explain exactly why there is a disclosed COI?

Now my question about sources: (a) http://www.bootsorchestra.co.uk/30th-november-2018/ on the Orchestra's web site gives full details about our last concert held at St. John’s Church, Mansfield on Saturday, 10th November 2018. On that page there is a link to the male voice choir's web site: https://www.mansfieldmvc.co.uk/ which itself has a great review of the concert on this page: https://www.mansfieldmvc.co.uk/an-air-of-professionalism/ which includes: "May I take this opportunity to express our thanks to the Mansfield & District Male Voice Choir, the Singers and the Boots Orchestra (my own emphasis in bold) for performing at St John’s church, in the Aspire concert, in aid of St John’s Spire and Tower appeal.”

(b)Ms Megumi Rolfe is our a Resident Violin Soloist and her website includes https://megumirolfe8.wixsite.com/violin/biography which states: As a soloist she has performed Bruch's Violin Concerto and Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto with the various orchestras including the Boots Orchestra. (My own emphasis in bold.)

(c) The Clarinettist Nigel Hinson, a recording artist, will be playing at our concert on Saturday, 15th June 2019 at St. John the Baptist Church, Carlton (7:30). Nigel does not yet mention us on his website, which is https://www.nigelhinson.com/ but we can ask him to do so once he has played as a soloist at that concert. There is a link to Nigel's site on this page of the Orchestra's web site: http://www.bootsorchestra.co.uk/concerts/ and if you use it and wait several seconds you can hear an audio clip of Nigel playing his clarinet.

Would those three websites (a), (b) and (c) be acceptable as reliable sources that I could cite to support my proposed edit within Boots UK's See also section?

Lastly in this session, I must say that, as no-one has asked me to do anything on Wikipedia for the Orchestra, I am under no pressure to do anything here at all, so I'm not in any hurry whatsoever! I just thought it would be a good idea, and then, later this year, maybe, I might be able to create a complete new page on Wikipedia for the Orchestra... But, after this latest experience of nearly getting blocked, then finding you - and you have really helped me - and now having to find some reliable sources, can you understand that, just at this minute, I'm not exactly feeling as keen to do it all as I first did? Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

All of those appear to be primary sources, so no, they're not what we want.

I've started a section at Talk:Boots UK#Boots Orchestra, but suggest that you read and reflect on wp:verifiability before proposing any there. And there may not be any. Be prepared for that.

You do have a COI. But that doesn't disqualify you from editing now that you've disclosed it. Suggest you read and reflect on that page too, and by all means ask about anything that isn't clear... but it looks pretty clear to me.

An article on the Orchestra would need even more sources to justify it. See the discussion I've started on the Boots article talk page.

You weren't nearly blocked, in fact if you-know-who had proposed it it could even have boomeranged on them in my opinion. We'll never know. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, thanks very much for putting the new section onto the Boots UK Talk page.

I've read it but must say I'm still totally baffled about two things: why all the factual history stated on the Orchestra's web site seems to count for nothing - for instance how Jesse Boot, the founder of the Boots Company, very actively encouraged his Company to support bands, choirs and orchestras - and why, as Boots UK still supports the Orchestra today, there can be any conflict of interest of any kind between the Orchestra and the Company? I just cannot understand those two things!

At the risk of sounding too long-winded, I wish to confirm that the Orchestra is a non-profit-making charity and that all the Orchestra's members are volunteers - some of them are employees of Boots UK. We play in our own leisure time, we charge nothing for our time and we donate our concerts free of charge to each venue at which we perform. Each venue sells tickets for their concert and all proceeds from the sale of those tickets go solely to support a charity chosen by the venue. The Orchestra is provided with rehearsal rooms in the Boots UK Conference Centre in Beeston, Nottingham, free of any charge by the Company and in return we occasionally give concerts to the Company's staff in the Conference Centre.

To ensure there is no immediate distraction to any third-party who may wish to post about this topic on the Boots UK Talk page, I plan to desist from posting anything there myself, maybe for the next few days or a week. Do you have any advice to give me about myself posting on that Talk page i.e. if I should/should not and, if applicable, how long I should wait before posting anything?

I note that, in that new Talk section, there is currently no link to the Orchestra's web site http://www.bootsorchestra.co.uk/ That is a shame because the web site contains such a lot of factual history about the Orchestra - starting with the More Info! tab - which, surely, readers of the Talk page would find useful as background information if they were able to simply click on a link to go to the site? If, purely for information, you could add such a link, I'd be very grateful to you.

Particular links to the Orchestra' history that it would be great to cite, if I were ever allowed to do so, are: Music at Boots - how it all started Our history Our founder

Anameisbutaname^Talk 20:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you read and absorbed wp:primary source as I requested?

Assuming you have, there are three possibilities I can think of:

• Perhaps you think these are secondary sources.
• Perhaps you think that the Wikipedia practice of basing our content on secondary sources should be changed.
• Perhaps you think that these should be exceptions to this principle.

Do any or all of these apply, and/or are there other explanations I haven't thought of?

I see no reason at all that you shouldn't post to the Boots UK talk page. But I'd refrain from editing the article itself. Instead we build consensus on the talk page on any update to the article. Andrewa (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Andrewa!

Another day for me to learn more about Wikipedia!

From a link in one of the pages you asked me to read and absorb, I found the page all about the "Five pillars": "... legal matters, the editorial principles of Wikipedia are embodied in the "five pillars" and in numerous policies and guidelines intended to appropriately ... " and it impressed me greatly. Anameisbutaname^Talk 13:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(Sigh) They impress me too. Unfortunately, we are all human, and just occasionally even the best-respected Wikipedian will ignore them with neither good reasons nor good consequences. (;-> Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A new essay

Have a look at User:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC) . Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - it does help. The Orchestra's More Info! tab and its 3 sub-tabs contain facts about at least 4 living people and its founder who died in 1994. Whilst I have no doubt the facts stated are correct, I have a declared COI so the statements made about them need citations from acceptable second sources to be allowed to be posted on Wikipedia.

An inner voice is saying to me: "You don't have time to do all this, just give it up..." But I'll go on ignoring it for as long as possible... I wish all those other massive multi-billion so-called "social media" sites had seen the light to create and embrace all the good stuff - laws and morals - that Wikipedia clearly has done already... Anameisbutaname^Talk 08:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I know the feeling! But you sound like the sort of idealist who is the ideal Wikipedian.

That's indeed a great compliment, many thanks.

Have a look at wp:creed, the whole of it.

Certainly will do. Anameisbutaname^Talk 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But also read between the lines. For example WP:SOAP only tells half the story.

Example: I'm a second-generation pro-nuclear greenie, my late father having been arguably Australia's most prominent nuclear engineer (although Les Kemeny will probably have an article before he does and Ernest Titterton already does) and of similar mind... he also built one of Australia's first wind turbines, and our home had a home-built solar hot water service before they were commercially available. I can't promote my views on Wikipedia directly. But I can try to make sure that our coverage of the issues is accurate and I'm confident that the facts do support my views. See [6] for a bit on this

And I don't always win, the article on nuclear power phase-out has for example often been very POV suggesting the antis have won, which isn't the whole story by any means. End of manifesto! Andrewa (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

COI

On waking this morning it (at last) dawned on me that the COI with Boots UK that you and the other editor were discussing refers to me - as I'm a member of the Orchestra - and does not refer to any conflict of interest between the Orchestra itself and Boots UK, as I had at first thought. If only that point had been explained to me in a little bit more detail earlier, we could all have saved quite a few words! Anameisbutaname^Talk 14:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly.

On the other hand, if you'd read that policy when it was first suggested (by me I think) then it should have been quite clear... but there's a LOT to read I know, and you-know-who linking to irrelevant pages didn't help. I don't do that I hope (despite what they say... see this off-this-wiki essay of mine for some thoughts on that, but not as a high priority). Still, you've been around or a while, I'm a bit surprised you're not up to speed on primary sources and verifiability. Suggest those are a high priority. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Re. "Suggest those are a high priority" Ok, I certainly realise that now. I have worked "unguided" on Wikipedia until I made my post on Boots UK's See also section. Apart from searching for info as a "user", I've come on site here very irregularly as an "editor" so I suppose I was left to my own devices. All I have done is add small amounts of factual info about the products of some of the IT companies I worked-for as a professional engineer before I retired in 2007. I've also edited info about cities local to me, etc. Also I've done some spelling correction and punctuation editing to make text clearer to read - but not much of that really. Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And you've done really well, and most people do. See wp:bold and wp:creed#bold. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Sources

Have you read and absorbed wp:primary source as I requested?

Yes, read it a couple of times but not really absorbed fully yet....

Assuming you have, there are three possibilities I can think of:

• Perhaps you think these are secondary sources.

I thought the review on the website of the male voice choir An air of professionalism and of the violinist Megumi Rolfe - biography could perhaps be valid secondary sources and also that, whilst the clarinettist's can't be cited as a source yet, it might become one later, when it mentions he had performed with the Orchestra. Now I need to reconsider that thought, I know...

• Perhaps you think that the Wikipedia practice of basing our content on secondary sources should be changed.

No, not at all - I now realise why undisputable secondary sources are needed to support whatever I may say as an author with a disclosed COI.

• Perhaps you think that these should be exceptions to this principle.

No, not at all - if I can cite enough relevant and acceptable sources then no exceptions would be necessary.

Do any or all of these apply, and/or are there other explanations I haven't thought of?

The only other thing is this: a major issue for me, which caused me to say earlier: "just at this minute, I'm not exactly feeling as keen to do it all as I first did" was that my feelings about Wikipedia were initially very badly affected by the behaviour of the other editor. I could not understand why he was in such a rush to threaten me with blocking without first giving me some explanations about the meanings of the acronyms - such as "COI" - and special terms - such as "promo" and "Non-notable" - that he was using. Even if very brief explanations, along with a few links to relevant pages for me to read, had been advised to me prior to issuing the threat, they would have given me a chance to learn more about Wikipedia's "laws and morals". Surely it should be best practice to defer giving such a threat until after the editor had seen how I responded to his advice? Whilst that behaviour left me extremely puzzled and disappointed, I did not give up my project, which is what that behaviour gave me a very strong feeling was what that editor might have hoped...

Anyway, that is all water under the bridge now - I am so happy that I decided to seek help and found you, Andrewa - and I'm hoping things will all be very positive from now on. There must be lots of other books like the one you kindly found, local newspaper articles, etc. which other members of the orchestra may well have already. At our rehearsal next Tuesday evening I plan to make a small announcement to the other members, asking if they have any of these books or other documents at home or know of any available at a library. I shall also explain why I need to have a chance to take notes about them, so as to be able to cite them as sources here, giving titles, authors, publication dates, ISBN numbers, etc. Anameisbutaname^Talk 14:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

All good. But the M&DMVC and Megumi Rolfe sites aren't really what we're after. (I note that neither of them have Wikipedia articles as yet... that's not a show-stopper, but it's indicative that we're in for a tough search.)

On the matter of discouraging behaviour, my first article was vandalised by a well established editor who replaced my text by ...is somebody in the University of Iowa with the edit summary Making the most of a minimal effort. But they could have justifiably deleted it, so I guess I should be grateful for that... I was on a steep learning curve. And the article is still there, much improved by myself and others. (But the history in question seems to have been lost or oversighted, and maybe that's a good thing.) Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

Have a look at wp:sig#Customizing how everyone sees your signature which says in part When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind:... A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page... (my emphasis). The default signature contains a link directly to the user talk page, and while this isn't mandatory it is customary. Yours only contains a link to your non-existent user page, which does in turn link to the talk page, but requires an extra mouse click, and is IMO in clear violation of the intent of the guideline even if not its letter. Just a suggestion. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Andrewa, I've read wp:sig#Customizing how everyone sees your signature - thanks for that, I was not aware of it before! - and had a go at doing it in the Special page Preferences. However, on testing it, I can see the Talk word isn't working as a link. Is that perhaps because my test is being done an that actual Talk page so there's no need for the link to work on that page itself? If that's not the reason, are there any more tips you could give me to explain how to make the 'Talk' word work as a link? Anameisbutaname^Talk 12:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Try it on my talk page... reply at User talk:Andrewa#Sig test. Andrewa (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Threat"

Just a heads up I've dewatched the Boots page as well as your talkpage so you're more than welcome to make any edits as you please (within reason) to that article, No AIV reports shall be done by me, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of Anameisbutaname and anyone else lurking, this seems to be a response to this post by me to their user talk page.

We have of course been here before. We will see what happens this time!

And just to clarify, an IBAN or TBAN would only be appropriate if Davey2010 were to revert properly sourced material. They have not done this. My concern that they might stems purely from their oft-repeated claim that we need to establish notability for the Orchestra in order to add a mention of it to the existing article, and that they will revert if notability is not established. This is one thing I was attempting to discuss on their talk page (twice now).

The bar is a lot higher for notability. They can revert unsourced material, but they cannot revert material simply because it is not notable, and it would be grounds for an iban or tban if they did and intended to continue to do so.

But the original justification given for reverting... twice... was exactly that... not notable [7] [8] with no other explanation or justification. COI was raised later... but by myself, and later repeated by Davey2010. And note the title they gave the above section... #Non notable. That is not the issue.

Davey2010 has now undertaken not to revert adequately sourced edits. But there still seems no recognition of the fact that the bar is lower for the proposed edits than for a separate article on the Orchestra. This concerned me at first simply because I felt it confusing to Anameisbutaname, who has been on Wikipedia for some time but prior to this had only about a hundred edits. It now concerns me even more because a highly experienced editor such as Davey2010 should know the difference between notability and sourcing.

At the risk of creating a wall of text it might be useful to add an example. George Skakel#Personal life lists his wife and seven children by name, but only one of these eight persons has a Wikipedia article. In fact some of them don't even have inline references to verify that they even existed. But it would be ridiculous to remove this material as non notable. It is easily verifiable even without references, and even assuming that the wife and six of the children are all non notable, their names still belong in the article. Many other examples could be given. Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

See also #A new essay above. Andrewa (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources found for suggested addition of a new entry The Boots Orchestra in Nottingham to Boots UK's See also section

This list has been copied to the Talk:Boots UK page and will be continued there.

UPDATE: Please see latest updates to Talk:Boots_UK#Sources found for suggested addition of a new entry The Boots Orchestra in Nottingham to Boots UK's See also section Anameisbutaname^Talk 19:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotional

This seems to me to be blatantly promotional.

After I'd posted my 4 new questions below (Could you answer 4 more short questions please?) I went on to read wp:promotional and then the page about Spam, in particular How not to be a spammer. Now I realise that you must be telling me it is the whole of that draft section that is bad, including the paragraphs about the Macmillan and WE organisations as well as about the orchestra, not just the link i included direct to the orchestra's web site. Is that right?

I really don't know what to do next about addressing what you said on the Boots UK Talk page, particularly "The other thing is we need to avoid giving the orchestra undue weight. The article is about Boots UK. Do they support other similar causes and groups? If so we need to cover all of these, not just this one Orchestra". That is what I've tried to do in that draft new section i.e. not give undue weight to the orchestra on its own. Can you advise me further as to how it could be achieved in an acceptable way? Anameisbutaname^Talk 10:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go from here. If you continue to post promotional material ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, even if it's in ignorance of the Wikipedia rules (but I've put a LOT of time into explaining them to you), then Davey2010 was quite right, you'll just get blocked.

And that's not a threat, but it is a warning. Disruption is disruption even if unintentional, it wastes not just your time but also that of others, and we need to draw the line somewhere. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making everything so clear with your warning. It is well received. I'm still learning the ropes here and therefore everything I have done on this topic since my first attempt to insert a reference to the orchestra has just been asking questions, no more than that. I realise now that some of my questions are rhetoric because of the way they were structured, albeit done unconsciously. It's another lesson I have learned: I now know I must be much more careful in asking my questions and never use anything that could be read as rhetoric.

Could you answer 4 more short questions please?

Is this correct: direct links to the primary source - Boots UK's own site - are ok, i.e. are not being challenged, because Boots UK is a notable organisation?

Is this correct: that even though two secondary sources have now been cited, by themselves they are not enough to allow the orchestra to be regarded as a notable organisation?

If that is so, then that direct link I put in to the orchestra's own site - i.e. that primary source - cannot be allowed because it would always be regarded as blatent promotion being done by a non-notable organisation?

If I took away that direct link to the primary source - the orchestra's web site - would the rest of the text in that sandbox draft section be acceptable with its cited refs to the two secondary sources? ("The Boots Orchestra concert on October 19, 2015". Ruddington Parish Council, Nottinghamshire, England and "Summer concert by the Boots Orchestra - Saturday 18th June 2016". The Church of England Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham.) Anameisbutaname^Talk 08:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that so well. Perhaps they key here is to remember what Wikipedia is here for. Try to pretend that you didn't have any connection at all to the Orchestra (yes, it's not easy), and ask... Does this improve the encyclopedia? If the answer is maybe, don't do it, even on a talk page!

In reply...

Is this correct: direct links to the primary source - Boots UK's own site - are ok, i.e. are not being challenged, because Boots UK is a notable organisation? No. Forget notability unless we're talking about creating a separate article on the topic. It's a red herring, and the editor who raised it should have known better.

Is this correct: that even though two secondary sources have now been cited, by themselves they are not enough to allow the orchestra to be regarded as a notable organisation? Not true in principle, maybe true in this case, but not particularly relevant in any case, see the first answer. Forget notability.

If that is so, then that direct link I put in to the orchestra's own site - i.e. that primary source - cannot be allowed because it would always be regarded as blatent promotion being done by a non-notable organisation? No. But I'd suggest at this stage that we forget about using primary sources too. They're tricky at the best of times.

If I took away that direct link to the primary source - the orchestra's web site - would the rest of the text in that sandbox draft section be acceptable with its cited refs to the two secondary sources? No. In my opinion, it would still be blatantly promotional. It still reads like advertising copy, and nothing at all like what we want in an encyclopedia.

You are obviously finding it very difficult to adopt an encyclopedic mindset, and that's not surprising... you're used to writing advertising copy for the Orchestra. See neutral point of view. That's what we need, and it's not negotiable.

So maybe ask yourself... Would that be suitable copy for a brochure put out by the Orchestra? And if the answer is yes, then it's probably not suitable material for Wikipedia. The facts may be OK if they are all backed up by secondary sources (and primary ones can be of a little use, but see above) but the appropriate phrasing is very different. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Many, many thanks Andrewa. You've explained my present situation extremely well. By my future actions I hope I shall be able to demonstrate that I understand all you have said i.e. from now on, when contributing to Wikipedia, I will do my best to adopt an encyclopedic mindset. I'll mark that "promotional-styled" draft new Section as "about to be deleted" right now. I'm worried that, if I just delete it, that would stop your "This" link to it from working, which would get me into even more trouble. ??? I shall start planning a completely new version of it to put there eventually. Last week I phoned Boots UK's Archivist and am hoping she will be able to help me to find some factual material about the Orchestra with appropriate reliable sources. I know it can't happen quickly. Anameisbutaname^Talk 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly removed it. You can still find it here if you want to reuse any of it. That's one interesting thing about Wikipedia... in a sense you can change (almost) anything, but in another you can change (almost) nothing, because it's all in the page history. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now expanded this point at Wikipedia:You can and cannot change Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Created this page Archive 1 Anameisbutaname^Talk 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)