User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 8

New section

You retracted something I wrote on a page for Zacualpan, Nayarit. You will not find any articles or sources of information. I AM FROM ZACUALPAN, NAYARIT. Both sides of my family are from there, my grandparents, great grandparents, every member of my extended family, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. Is from that town. Most of them still live there. I know the history of Zacualpan, you will not find any articles. Trust me. My grandfather was one of 3 land investors, he helped create the town. Please allow my edits because i know the real history of that town since I am from there. Mistakt (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read this. Unfortunately all info must be reliably sourced. Robvanvee 08:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Robvanvee

I'm pretty sure you can agree that Oasis aren't pop so don't keep changing it to pop idiot ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Also for as long as "Whatever" has existed on Wikipedia it's always said Britpop and you never hear anyone call Oasis pop do you ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Also on the sourced page it's also says Britpop which means me putting Britpop is just as reliably sourced as Pop. Also on the website is Pop/Rock which means Rock is also could be reliably sourced as well and due to Oasis being classed as Rock or Britpop 99% of the time (they also class themselves as that) I think it's best we just Rock or Britpop ok pal ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No pal, it's no ok. You are constantly replacing reliably sourced material with unsourced material. Are you able to understand how that goes against Wikipedia policy? Unfortunately your personal interpretation of the song is irrelevant here and only reliable sources can be trusted. It should also be noted that as per this page, only the prose from AllMusic is considered reliable and the sidebar is not. Finally, calling someone an idiot is considered uncivil on Wikipedia and I'd warn you against that. Robvanvee 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Robvanvee

I know we haven't been getting on that well but I don't want to keep arguing with you so know we can hopefully put this behind us and now become friends so are we cool now ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries mate. Let's just stick to editing by the rules and I won't be a wanker. Also, if you need help sourcing, as this is a very important part of editing, check this out or ask me to assist. Good luck. Robvanvee 19:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Devil Hopping

Hello, I'm not angry I'm just confused because on the devil hopping page you claim that the dates are unsourced but any other date on Wikipedia doesn't have a citation next to it so how can the dates be sourced ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you dispute any unsourced info feel free to remove it. If you feel the need to change it, be sure to source your edit. Robvanvee 04:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Robert

You took away the edit from Doctor Robert but that's confusing due to the genre info for Revolver it says the song is psychedelic rock and power pop and I added power pop to the genre box for Yesterday and Today. It's the name song so shouldn't therefore it be classed with the same genres

P.S do you check in on my contribution page all the time to see what edits I've made so you can complain to me about them because that's what it look like. ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A: As already stated several times above and on my edit summaries, source your edits! Learn to do that, implement the practice when editing and you won't have me reverting you. And B: I check on the edits of many users that have the repeated tendency to add unsourced info to a variety of articles such as yourself. Robvanvee 16:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I've removed Power pop completely as it was not reliably sourced as already explained to you previously. Robvanvee 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Unneccessary Reverts/Warning

Why did you give me a warning when one of the people I listed on the Aftermath wiki did have a source and it mentioned the rapper Sticky Fingaz being in Aftermath during the middle of the article. It seems as if you didn't even read the full article. Fusionn1 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Because you didn't source Proof and New Addition as well as many of your other edits on other articles. No source = revert. Feel free to add back SF if you are sure its reliably sourced. Robvanvee 08:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's No Good - Music Videos

Hi Robvanvee. Thanks for sending me instructions on referencing for beginners, since yeah I'm currently very inexperienced with Wikipedia editing. I will add a reliable source to the edit I made to It's No Good.

I had a couple questions if you could help me out.

1. The Music Video information prior to my edit also doesn't site any references. Should that also be removed/fixed? I could probably take care of that if that's what should be done. I just want to be clear on the policy for making future edits.
2. Can I link to YouTube? I could add links to both videos that are on YouTube.

I'll add a reference, then make any additional changes based on your feedback to these questions. Thanks for helping me out!

Would this be a "reliable source" I can use? A link to the video itself to show that it exists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcKKsxKC5Go

Mattdruid (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Also - this "Video" is actually not a "Music Video" but was used as a Tour Projection. I'll re-add the info, but fix it so that I'm not calling it a "Video", but a "Tour Projection". I didn't realize that until I did some more research now. Thanks.

Mattdruid (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mattdruid. The reason I reverted your edit was not because of the description of the video content ("This music video is black and white and depicts a married man wanting a waitress" and yes, this sort of info can be sourced using Youtube) but because of the "filmed in Los Angeles at Nick's Cafe on 1300 NorthSpring Street" bit. This bit requires better sourcing. Regarding your first question, if you feel any unsourced info to be contentious, go right ahead and delete it. I generally don't delete every single bit of unsourced info on Wikipedia that I find but if an editor adds new unsourced info I revert as per this policy. Hope this all makes sense? Robvanvee 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever (Oasis)

How come the source for Whatever's genre is a review. How can one person's own view on the song be a reliable source?? ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It cant as per this policy and another called no original research. Robvanvee 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reading your question again, I realise what it is you are asking. Their review of the song is considered reliable because AllMusic reviewers are professional music critics and a Wikipedia editor, such as yourself is not. For that reason my original answer above comes back into play. So for the umpteenth time...No original research and cite your edits!!! Robvanvee 09:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:February 2019

I received a message from you claiming my edits on Toxicity (album) constituted "vandalism". How was it vandalism? I was trying to justify having the photo of Manson on the page by explaining how it related to the album. The text I used could be found in the body paragraph of the article. 76.80.178.3 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I was overly hasty in reverting you without properly checking your edit. I have removed the warning from your talk page and reinstated your edit on the Toxicity page. Robvanvee 07:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oasis folk edit reason

Hi. I got your message of you reverting my edit on Oasis. I've just gotten into the band and have heard some songs from them. I edited the genre to say that they are a folk band because I heard songs like Wonderwall and Married With Children, with acoustics galore. Yes, they've done average rock songs like "Fuckin' In The Bushes", but what I've heard sounded very folkish to me. So I made the blind edit to say that they're folk. I apologise for my edit. - User talk:Danielcool123 16:00, 6 February 2019 (GMT)

No stress, but be sure to read this policy regarding all info added to Wikipedia, especially genre's. Another helpful page explaining how to add references can be found here. Good luck and shout if you need help. Robvanvee 16:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

AllMusic

I just want to say I've changed my mind about wanting to blacklist AllMusic. I now agree with you that it's a reliable website for sources (though I will still personal disagree that Whatever is pop) anyway, Have a good day. ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source for adding genres? (Spiderland)

Hi, so you mentioned that when I added the genre "Math Rock" to the article for the Slint album, Spiderland, I did not use a reliable source. I cited Discogs, AllMusic, and Rate Your Music (which all categorize the album as Math Rock) ...are these not considered reliable? Wikipedia regards these as online databases. If these are not reliable sources for labeling a music genre, then what would be an example of a reliable source on the matter?

Hi Wonderland ave. Please see this page that lists reliable and unreliable sources. Rate your Music and Discogs are considered unreliable and with regards to AllMusic, the prose is considered reliable but the sidebar (where it says Mathrock) is not. Hope that helps. Robvanvee 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). Robvanvee 19:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Help Sourcing

Hello I was wondering if you could help me in editing Oasis' discography page. I was planning on editing the (What's The Story) Morning Glory section and using the NME's 50 fastest selling albums page as a source I'm just struggling on the layout of the references ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to help if you intend to edit constructively, which you are not always prone to doing, such as here and here to name but a few.

OK, first, read this very helpful "how-to-guide". Then start by practicing in your sandbox. Remember, all articles that are having references added need a reflist section at the bottom of the article such as the one below:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What I tend to do is copy and paste an already existing reference from an article and just edit the reference details. Look here for some reference samples you can copy. Copy everything from "<ref" all the way to "</ref>". Be sure to fill in all the parameters. As I say, play in your sandbox until you have it waxed or give me a shout if you need more help. Robvanvee 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks(ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

IP address blocked from editing?

Hello Robvanvee,

Yesterday I received the following message: "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kamikaze (Eminem album). Robvanvee 07:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)"

I have never edited any pages on Wikipedia before, and don't even listen to Eminem's music. Why was my account accused of vandalism? And how come I only received this message 3 months later? Malcolm Quartey (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You don't have any messages on your talk page, where exactly is this message I sent to you? I looked at the Kamikaze history and see that I reverted a user called Michaelcogbill on that day but never left them a warning on their talk page as well as reverting an IP for persistently changing the reception section. Are you that IP? If so, perhaps I was heavy handed with my warning. We had reached a consensus on the issue at the talk page and I was getting irritated with the disruptive editing. Also, it was 3 months ago and I've since moved on but if it was by mistake and you have every intention of editing constructively, please accept my apology. Robvanvee 11:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I just created this account. I've never had one before. I've never edited anything on wikipedia before. I'm not interested in Eminem or his Kamikaze album. I'm pretty sure I've never been on that page prior to receiving this message. Here's the link to the message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.66.202.223 Malcolm Quartey (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone from that IP address did. Anyway, it was some time ago so don't worry about it. Cheers. Robvanvee 15:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cape Town cannabis march.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cape Town cannabis march.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B dash (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocking Oreratile1207

Hello Robvanvee, following what you said to Oreratile1207, Oyi is a new sonv that 2Baba dropped long time ago Mannasi46 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If I am to understand what it is you are trying to say, my response to you both is source your edits! Robvanvee 14:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Britpop musicians

Hello Robvanvee. Can I please get your support on the List of Britpop musicians page? It seems we have a "Dean" problem. The user in question keeps removing Catatonia and Babybird no matter how many reliable sources substantiating their belonging to the original Britpop movement I include in the article. It's really getting insufferable... Thank you very much.

You're telling me. This has been ongoing with the same guy on various articles for quite some time but to be perfectly honest, I either just have had better things to do or haven't had the energy to take this to admin. As far as this list goes however, I'm just not really interested and while I thanked you, it was before I realised you were sourcing a band using just a song as a reference. When one sources a band's genre, you need a source mentioning the band's entire career. So while he correctly reverted you, he did so for the wrong reason. Sometimes you just need to step back and let other editors take care of the situation. Getting worked up over a list just isn't worth it, even when certain people think they own certain articles. BTW hitting ~ four times at the end of your comment will sign and date your comment for you. Try it in your sand box. Happy editing! Robvanvee 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually, the source in question was just one of the several articles I've used to make a point about the artists at stake. I've shared quite a few sources stating that Babybird and Catatonia were part of the original Britpop movement, not because of just one song but because a significant part of their career happened during this era and their musical style matched all the codes... but he keeps undoing what I did. He's the exact type of user who made me stop contributing to Wikipedia years ago, actually. It's a real shame...CouchJarvis (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to those sources as this one only refers to tracks. Robvanvee 17:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just re-added some... if he hasn't removed Catatonia from the list again. ;-) Anyway, here are the links:

https://metro.co.uk/2014/04/16/from-catatonia-to-kula-shaker-where-are-those-britpop-band-members-now-4696675/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/britpop-britain-guitar-taught-world-25-years-ago-1993-blur-oasis-sleeper-elastica-sonya-madan-a8312001.html CouchJarvis (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course he has! Listen, just had a wisdom tooth pulled. Give me a day and I'll look into it once I'm feeling better. Till then keep busy on some other britpop articles :) Robvanvee 04:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

....tick...tock...Robvanvee 05:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that went well! Robvanvee 06:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Robvanvee,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Gold & Grey album cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hey Robvanvee, do you have any sort of idea as of why "Binksternet" always reverts edits? Purple Rain has many indications that it needs improving, which I did by taking out repeated information and improving it in other ways, yet "Binksternet" reverted it without an explanation. He seems to revert without ever saying why he did, and seems to not actually look through the improvements. Also with other articles, like Dangerous, I put in key information that the album was the best selling album of 1992 and "Black or White" was the best selling single, yet he reverted it without an explanation. I also source everything and explain what's changed in every edit. Could you perhaps check out the Purple Rain article before his revert and after, and you'll see the huge improvement and perhaps get an understanding of where I'm coming from. Thanks. 92.7.38.194 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I see you have asked Binksternet on his talk page so perhaps you should wait for his reply. I'm not sure why you are asking me as I am not following that page as such. Robvanvee 11:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Rob, I'm seeing this IP user doing the same things as the recently blocked IP Special:Contributions/88.111.150.20 who was doing the same things as blocked user Keditz. So I'm reverting him per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bink. There you go 92.7.38.194, does that answer your question? May I suggest creating an account if you are that interested in editing as it will help avoid any further confusion. Robvanvee 14:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

New section

Hello, Robvanvee,

Please take a look at the opened discussion about the recent edits by Dean12065: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_sourced_content,_pushing_a_personal_opinion,_ignoring_assessed_warnings.

I believe if this user want to judge music genres, styles, and give assessment of such music things down the line, it is worth to him to consider to become a contributor to any of top categorized media or such rather than classifying things by his own interpretation. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ This Is Where I Came In (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Disintegration

Hi "Robvanvee" - you strangely deleted some references to the Fender VI on the Cure's Disintegration page - care to elaborate why you'd delete information like this that's 100% accurate? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.209.101 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi 173. Yeah, it was original research ie not supported by a reliable source. All info added needs to be verifiable. Robvanvee 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robvanvee, here's the problem: on every single live performance of those specific songs, Smith is playing a Fender VI, and it's obviously the same instrument that was used in the recording of them. He's not citing this fact in interviews, and I'm not sure why this would be a stand-out portion to delete if other pages are able to do a basic instrument reference without citing written material. Let me know when you undo the deletion, as it's actually pretty integral to the article. PS I'd say roughly 65% of this article was initially an attempt to push sales for Jeff Apter's book, which speaks volumes about what's getting cited vs not. Please let me know as I spent time including that and to delete it is questionable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.151.93 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read any of the links I highlighted in my last message? ..."and it's obviously the same instrument that was used in the recording of them"...We don't do obviously's here, only cited material from reliable sources which your original research is not! Other pages with questionable unsourced material may have said material deleted but just because those pages have poorly sourced info (thereby lowering the quality of those articles) does not mean to say we should do the same here. If what you say is so, you should have no problem finding sources to support this and please read the links I sent you in the last message as there is something important in this policy that I'd like to bring to your attention, which is: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Robvanvee 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are doing a great job in terms of contributions to wikipedia. Keep going. Dileepkandula (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but what in particular are you referring to if you don't mind my asking? Robvanvee 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

heads-up

Hello My name is Nahom I edited the page You Learn to include that it samples a 1992 song by Jamaican artist Shabba Ranks. Due to Wikipedia's captcha system, I cannot do the in-line citation myself, because it does not work with my screen-reader and there is no audio option. As for the website, the website analyzes samples submitted to them. The staff of the website heavily modorate it and nothing goes on there without careful verification.

So if you could help me with citations or find a way ti include this rather important note in the song, as it is the bases of the song's beat, then that would be awesome. thanks Nahom 23.151.192.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this regarding your source. Robvanvee 10:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I source samples then, and where does it say anything about whosampled? I'm not reading along policy page, I can't just scan it like you guys can with your eyes. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess I am asking what section are you wanting me to look under as I don't want to read the entire page. I'll look at the section but it doesn't answer how I can source a sample if the questionable allmusic doesn't list it? Many music articles list songs that are sampled that the label either doesn't know about or something. The song sampled in You Learn is called Mr. Loverman. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Once it opens the page, scroll to the end of the table. They are listed alphabetically and Whosampled is at the bottom. The reason given is because the website is user generated. I have no idea where to source that, nor am I really particularly interested. My only concern is keeping things reliably sourced. If you find a reliable source, I'd be happy to help with adding it to the article. Good luck. Robvanvee 16:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I just hope you guys realize that Mr. Loverman was indeed sampled in You Learn. listening to the songs it's obvious but I know that's not enough. It is dead true though. People need to realize that not reliable sourced does not mean false. Perhaps a note on the reliable sources page needs to be mentioned that just because something is not reliably sourced it doesn't mean it's false. thanks 23.151.192.180 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Just a heads up, you should have reported the user to AIV for this edit. Adding unsourced content after a final warning could of had him blocked. Since you issued another final warning, we will have to wait for disruption again. I also question if their username is allowed since Dope=slang for drugs. Judging by @Binksternet: post on CheeseAndDope's talk page, they have been disrupting Wikipedia for awhile from various IPs. Seems like this is a WP:LTA thing, but I do not watch list enough hip hop articles anymore to know the extent of what's going on. So if anyone does this needs to go to ANI probably. StaticVapor message me! 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In hindsight yeah, but I've seen enough from this guy to know he is probably going to do it again sometime soon so let's just keep an eye on him. BTW I'm pretty sure you can also report them at ANI if they've received 3 final warnings. Anyways...watching Mr Dope. Robvanvee 20:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like our old friend BushidoBrown is back with a new sock. The report I made here talks about his style and the usage of Delaware IPs. I will start a sockpuppet case. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect

Excuse me but I did cite sources and as a result the creator of the page kept the genre and I also went on the talk page. Rather you should be correcting the user disruptively reverting clearly cited sources and information on the page to cover up a fact. Reassess your priorities. Wikierman337 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take your issue here where I have responded to your initial comment. Robvanvee 17:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion

Dear Robvanee, I want to apoligise for any mess I have caused. After I realised the screenshot from the fan-made music video was unacceptable, I put in the official album art (making a note that there were no singles, so that was why there was no specific artwork for that song in particular), along with my well-cited and improved paragraph about the song, with reviews from newspapers both when it came out and from today. Can't you see I'm just trying to help edit? I'm really sorry if any of this has been misconstrued as edit warring/vandalism, but I swear to god it isn't. Please let me help with the page by having the paragraph I wrote there, and since you have stated you don't want me too, we can call it quits on the image. Please mate? Thank you for your time. I apologise once again for any confusion i have inadvertently caused.--Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Leavepuckgackle. Thank you for taking the time to leave this message, we are now moving in the right direction. I'm going to start a conversation here which is the right place for this topic. Robvanvee 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Robvanvee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No Surprises

I was the one who added the information about the original key of the song, and the only source there is, is a PDF file of the info in the MiniDisc leaks indicating it, which was a collaboration of several different users, including r/Radiohead and Discord, and the actual audio file, which is only available (legally) through bandcamp (though it may not be up forever, as it said that it will only be up for 18 days). I'll admit I'm not good at citation, but this situation confuses me a lot.

Highfidelity2020 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. All info on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced as per this policy. From the sounds of things, that doesn't sound like a very reliable source. In which case it's better to omit that detail. Robvanvee 09:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, the audio file was uploaded by Radiohead themselves, and after audio manipulation, if sped up by a semitone, perfectly matches the released version. That's the only one that's close to being reliable, but the audio is locked in with an entire almost 1-hour track (due to it being on MD). But I guess it's better to omit it for a while until further information is found. Highfidelity2020 (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Popcornduff here to better advise you as no one knows their way around Radiohead articles quite like he does. Your thoughts on this Popcornduff? Robvanvee 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't include this information until it's covered by a reliable secondary source. Sorry. Them's the rules.

There's been a lot of Wiki activity on Radiohead articles recently, following the leak drama. I plan to swoop in and clean it all up soon. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

From the horses mouth 😁 Thanks. Hope that answers your query Highfidelity2020. Robvanvee 13:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime

Hi Robvanvee, I've genuinely got a concern with the semi-retired user User: FlightTime. This user has left quite a few warnings on my page (I believe only one other user has left a warning) yet when I tried to explain to him that I sourced my edit (he accused me of editing with out putting in sources) he ignored me which gave me the impression that he knew I was right. Then I then go to his talk page to explain myself and let him know that I believe this a genuine misunderstanding on his part (because I definitely sourced what edited), but he removed the message from his talk page; so he doesn't even give me the chance to explain myself. This user has constantly given warnings for things which no one else has given a warning for, and then always throws in these little insults and shows that he seems genuinely pissed off because a new user has made a few mistakes. You can check my Talk history and his too, to see me trying to have a discussion but not being given the chance.

From my experience with this user, I believe he uses his status on Wikipedia as an unfair power: he has thrown small insults at me and doesn't give me the chance to even have a discussion with him. Other users have been fair and stated on my Talk page "Thanks for your contributions" and will kindly let me know what to read so I can take what's read on board when I next edit. This guy is the total opposite, seriously just not a nice guy. I haven't come across a user like him. It seems to me that he get's a boost from trying to shit on new users. These are my honest thoughts. Please read my discussion with him on mine and his Talk history so you will know that I'm not exaggerating. Thanks. 8eatle (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@8eatle: Don't trouble yourself, I'm done trying to teach you. Good luck with your tenure. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey man, what do you gain from insulting and just generally being rude to other users? Please let me know. Also, you didn't acknowledge me trying to explain to you that I actually did support my edits with sources. Why? When I try to explain to you, you ignore me or delete the message but when I try to explain to another user you tell me "Don't trouble yourself"? So my impression is that no one can really get a chance of having a genuine discussion without you trying to make them look like "trouble". 8eatle (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This editor has been checkuser blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well you do what you can to encourage the "newbies". Robvanvee 05:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

reliable sources

selam

My name is Nahom

You may want to start coming up with a non-Americanized (as in American university standard) definition of a reliable source that is non-maleable, to prevent confusion.

Whosampled (at least according to the standards I have known over my life) is a reliable source as their information is heavily vetted and strict. If one wants to submit, you must prove it really well or it doesn't get on there, because claiming a song samples another is serious business.

I can understand about last FM and discogs not being reliable for birth places, per Kim Sozzi and Kim Esty, because they are rather wiki-like. Whosampled on the othe rhand is much closer to CBC or BBC or else other sites that wiki views as reliable (again, this is the problem with maleable definitions). So don't you dare revert the edit that I restored unless you can come up with a non-American standard and non-maleable definition of a reliable source.

Americans tend to view reliable sources as essentially being scholarly. this isn't a college or university paper.

thanks

thanks199.101.62.225 (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources Robvanvee 04:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, don't assume my nationality or make idle threats on my talk page. If you are wrong, which you are, I will revert you. Robvanvee 05:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is assuming nationality. If I was I would have said "you crazy dutch man" because your name is dutch.

However whosampled is reliable due to its heavy vetting process.

The standards many users use for reliable appear to be rather like those of American colleges and universities.

The page you linked leaves a malleable definition of reliable, malleable as in open to different views of the term.

199.101.62.225 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The definition of Whosampled is not malleable in terms of its reliability on Wikipedia. Please see what the community consensus was when discussed...fails WP:USERG. In other words, it's user generated content ie unreliable. Robvanvee 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I get a 404 page when i click on the discussion.

199.101.62.225 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't. Try this link. Robvanvee 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Robvanvee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Silverchair

Hello, I would prefer to include the more specific link and higher quality article in the first sentence (Grunge is a featured article). I have started a talk page discussion concerning your revert here Talk:Silverchair#Grunge_in_the_lede. Dartslilly (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit on AC/DC's "Thunderstruck"

"Non-notable trivia"??? How is the use of this song at the Olympics not notable???

Please indicate what makes the use thereof notable in of itself. Hundreds of sports persons and teams use this song as their entrance theme or victory parade soundtrack. We do not need to list every single one on the "Thunderstruck" page. Also, please read this. Robvanvee 05:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"The AllMusic sidebar is not reliable"

Hello, yesterday I was writing a few edits for the page Spiderland but they happened to be reverted because "The AllMusic is not reliable", as I didn't start an edit war I was wondering, is it really not reliable? I see AllMusic as a properly published source with different writers and whatnot. Can I see any sources as to why it isn't fit for citations? Thanks. king regards, - an1alias — Preceding unsigned comment added by An1alias (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

HI An1alias. Yes an edit war is a bad idea. My edit summary actually said "the Allmusic sidebar is not reliable". The reviews are however. Please see this for more information. Shout if there is anything else. Robvanvee 08:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello, can you please give me an opinion of this discussion? Because of my inexperience I am afraid I may misunderstand the policy and have said something to offend the other editors he has pinged and I don't want to be in trouble if I make a mistake. I will apologize if I have misspoke. Dartslilly (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dartslilly. I don't think you said anything you need to worry about. Most editors are pretty thick skinned and I think others will recognise your attempts at keeping the quality at a high standard. With regards to the article and genre's: to be honest I'm actually not really that interested in the article or what happens regarding the genre's. I have my pages on my watchlist and that one doesn't interest me enough to get involved. That said, Cartoon network freak has sourced their edits and I'm not sure of a policy that specifically covers such a case so they may get consensus at the discussion you were having on the article talk page. If it matters that much you might want to take your question here or here and see what the feeling is from other editors. Good job at aiming for quality! Robvanvee 18:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ayanna Pressley Wiki Page

Hello Robvanvee. For clarification, the revisions that I made to Ayanna Pressley's wiki page are valid revisions and not simply practice. Ms. Pressley never graduated from Boston University. She only took courses at the School of General Studies. Her own website confirms this information (https://pressley.house.gov/about). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammy5150 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for editing in haste, feel free to revert. Robvanvee 17:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with Signature

Hey, I was just wondering how you made that colorful signature. Can you send me the markup for your signature so I can customize it for my username? Thanks, Sir 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Madam (talk • contribs)

Sure, just edit this conversation and copy and paste the text from my signature to your sandbox where you can edit it to your liking. Also don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~) Robvanvee 19:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

murderInc

So you're telling me if I add a source, that it will stay. I added a source before & it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.141.32 (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source there won't be a problem. Robvanvee 13:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I also only see one edit from you to that page, the one I reverted. Robvanvee 13:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if you get caught socking or block evading your next block is going to be much longer! Robvanvee 14:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Names of bands... Are it plural or is they singular? :)

Good day Robvanvee and thank you for your polite edit to my edit and also the Welcome to Wikipedia note that you sent me.

As a native British English speaker, I was interested that you reverted my "Dire Straits was a band" adjustment to "Dire Straits were a band".

Many native speakers regard the use of plurals to describe something singular as erroneous and, unfortunately, this habit is on the increase and there is considerable confusion about collectives of people in the form of band names, brand names and company names.

1) For band names in particular, I do notice that Wikipedia is itself inconsistent. A couple of searches confirms this. I found "Abba are" but "Aqua is", "New Order are" but "Evanescence is". "Spandau Ballet are" but "T'Pau is", at the start of their respective pages. Thus I would argue that there is no common standard and, as such, my adjustment to the Dire Straits page may be considered no less correct than the previous version. Is that fair?

2) In particular, in this case, the use of the plural form "Dire Straits are" could cause confusion due the plural word "straits" itself, within the name of the band. As a native speaker, I would specifically employ the singular form when referring to the band, to avoid this confusion. For example, in this playful sentence: "Dire straits are what I found myself in but Dire Straits is who I turned to."

3) Furthermore, you added the note that a band name is treated as plural. I would argue that "Dire Straits WAS [the name of] a band, but Dire Straits [the band itself] WERE playing at a concert.

I'm not going to go and adjust all the other bands I can find to be singular but if you see any merit in my three arguments above, perhaps you'll revert your reversion. In any case, I'm happy to have made my first small step into the Wikipedia Editors community.

Best regards,

Greenhipppo Greenhipppo (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome again Greenhipppo. Thanks for the message. Firstly, always place new messages at the bottom of a user talk or main space talk page please as per this guideline. Please refer to this policy regarding your query. Inconsistency does indeed exist but my suggestion would be to look at articles (of British artists) that are of a high quality standard such as Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Pink Floyd and Genesis for example. All good or featured quality articles. "Were" for all of them. Try edit those articles and you'll see a banner at the top addressing this very issue. Hope that all makes sense. Robvanvee 11:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Um what?

You’re referring to disruptive edits of me adding genres to two pages from The Cure? Without sources? Even though the genres that are already there have no sources? Like with The Hanging Garden, I literally added the same damn genres that’s listed from the page of the album that it’s from; And there’s no sources on that album page.

Also, gothic rock is a SUBGENRE of post-punk; Meaning all gothic rock is also simultaneously post-punk at the same time. That’s how music genres work. On the Faith page I literally added post-punk besides gothic rock, I never “changed” the genres. USMCLP (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read this policy. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This policy is not a recommendation and if you intend to add to or change a genre (or most information for that matter) please be sure to reliably source it. If, like me and other constructive editors, you want articles only of the highest standard, then this is what we all should be striving for. Robvanvee 10:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gold & Grey album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gold & Grey album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused

How can the issue of the article Tanki Online be addressed if, whenever anyone (tries to) expand the article, the edits end up getting reverted? 92.12.133.250 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to the edits that were reverted and I'll attempt to explain. Robvanvee 11:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at the edit history! Most of the edits were attempts to expand the article! 92.12.133.250 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and most of them are unsupported with reliable sources. If you want to edit here, policy dictates:"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Robvanvee 11:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Jane's Addiction

This one gave me a chuckle. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Jane's Addiction influenced Queen? That chap's having a laugh I suspect :) Robvanvee 05:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Metal edits

I will be careful with my edits for metal band info, I am a metalhead just looking to get more information out there, though as I am sure you know there are way too many bands to keep a full accounting of every single one in terms of genre, history, etc. I have noticed though that for the doom metal page, the band Lesbian does not have a wikipedia page and yet that is posted. I assume that is a mistake, since I am to only list bands that have wikipedia pages? For the sake of consistency, that band should be taken off, or if it is a special exception, please explain why. Thanks and I appreciate all the work you do to provide valuable, reliable information. Safran2019 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Safran2019

Hi Safran2019. Quite right indeed. Please delete if it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Here is a policy on notability which explains the issue. Another thing to consider is whether the genre you are listing the band in is reliably sourced on the band's article page. In other words, if you place XXX in Death metal, the genre needs to be reliably sourced on the band's article page too. When you really get stuck in you realize there is a lot of work that needs to be done so welcome and I look forward to your positive input. Shout for help anytime! Robvanvee 04:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Robvanvee,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Section dealing with inexperienced editor

You keep deleting edits I have been making and they are sourced. What other criteria are you using to give credit to these changes? Bookworm0408 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced non-notable trivia. That's 3 reasons! Robvanvee 04:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

And BTW, new discussions go at the bottom of a talk page in its own section. Robvanvee 04:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Tim Magraw remaking Drive is trivial? So you remove the entire covers section? You’re bias agenda is not needed here. Upon reviewing all of your work it’s very apparent how your self righteous logic does not apply to any of your own posts. Your opinion sadly is not desired so try and be consistent in your own work, to which is is very apparent you have way to much time on your hands. Wikipedia is not a community for you to feel high and mighty it should be based on fact. People with an agenda such as yourself should simply leave. Retitle your thread from inexperienced editor to “Bias jerk with agenda” Bookworm0408 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

My "bias agenda" as you so delightfully put it is to follow policy, 3 of which I quoted above and while we are discussing Wikipedia policies allow me to remind you of this rather important one: Civility, a trait you have yet to display. Robvanvee 20:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Have you ever considered it? You do a lot of great work across a lot of articles, and especially handle the minefield of music genres as well as anyone I've seen. Not to mention every ANI report of yours is spot on, whenever I see your name I know it'll be an open and shut case. RfA can seem fairly intimidating, but mine went just fine; can't think of any reason yours would be any different. And of course I'd happily provide a nomination. No pressure, of course. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously wow! Not for the admin bit but rather for the high praises, it really means a lot and I hope my contributions show that being part of this project truly is a labour of love for me. Finding your message really made my day, thank you! That said, back to that admin bit. Firstly, what an honour to be asked and I'm truly moved by the trust you seem to have in me. Secondly, what do you mean "no pressure"?!?! Tremendous incredible mountainous volumes of pressure!!! I regularly watch RfA's and have seen the grilling many editors endure in their attempts at getting the mop. Yours did go fairly smoothly I see but that was quite a while ago and it seems we see more participation at RfA discussions now days and as such more questions and probing from more individuals. Not that I have anything to hide. But that brings me to my next point. The biggest oppose would probably be that given my range of contributions, I show no definitive need to be handed a mop. What justification is there for being given these extra tools in my current area of interest, I'll be asked. Then there will be the usual questions of whether I've ever participated in certain areas that are of significance to acquiring adminship; AfD, SPI etc. Forth, I'm not the most highly versed editor with regards to policy and it sometimes takes me ages to track down a particular policy in order to quote in an edit summary or talk page. In fact, in my trying times I often go to Binksternet for advice when it comes to certain issues and how can I, as a far less experienced editor be offered the honour when someone like he and many other far more deserving editors are not admin? So I'm not saying no, I'm just raising a few points. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these issues The Blade of the Northern Lights and once again, thank you for the compliments. Robvanvee 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'm certainly glad I could make your day. I meant "no pressure" as in I don't want to force you if you aren't interested, some people really aren't interested. That said, those are good questions. I could possibly see the "lack of need" come up, but my response to that is that you work in a lot of high-vandalism areas, and being able to handle such things yourself makes everything that much easier. And not knowing every bit of policy isn't usually a huge deal, especially if you can show you're willing and able to find it. Plus, even if there are some areas you aren't familiar with, you interact with a lot of new users; that's a huge part of being an admin, knowing who needs help with what (and recognizing problem editors), and you do it very well. Hope that helps, and I'm definitely willing to help with any other questions. (And for the record, I think Binksternet would make a fine admin too) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's one they'll love: Bbb23 informed me very recently that IP's are not indeffed. In hindsight, yeah that makes perfect sense but with 35,000 edits under my belt one would think a potential admin should know that! Anyway, going to give it some thought over the weekend and while I am, I seem to recall there being some essays on things to consider before requesting. Does that sound familiar? Perhaps I should peruse those in the meantime. Robvanvee 20:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Easy for me to say, but I wouldn't worry too much about that specific thing; now you definitely know, so it wouldn't be an issue going forward (and there are a handful of admins who've blocked IPs indefinitely before). Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates is the place to start, and it has a couple other helpful essays linked there too. It may seem intimidating, but try not to get too spooked; I was very nervous before I ran, so definitely understandable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

About the reverted edits

You've made a mistake reverting my edits at Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group. I looked up this site and the one I've posted is the correct site and the copyright says "Sony Pictures Releasing". I see what you're trying to do. You're seeing that you're trying to get me blocked when you think I'm vandalizing when I'm not.173.93.207.154 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire. Tis you that are mistaken. I have no intention of getting you blocked nor do I think you are a vandal. In fact I can see your edits are all in good faith. I merely reverted what seemed to be several test edits and left a friendly welcome on your talk page. If I was mistaken, forgive me. While you are here, allow me to again extend a warm welcome and consider creating an account. Happy editing. Robvanvee 17:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

New section

I remastered the entire led zeppelin catalogue between 2012 and 2017 Check the sleeve notes!!

Why are you telling me this? Robvanvee 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The AllMusic sidebar IS reliable

AllMusic is used for the vast majority of music genre citations on Wikipedia. You claiming “it’s not reliable” without any supporting evidence to back up your claim does not make it a fact. Reverting edits back. This seems to be various user’s recurring problem with you.

Only newbies such as yourself that have yet to learn the rules. I'm going to explain this to you again since I explained in the edit summary when I reverted you as well as a special note on your talk page. This says you may not use the AllMusic sidebar to cite genre's, however you can use reviews that explicitly make mention of said genre. So you'll excuse me when I revert you in an attempt to stick to the rules which I've now explained 3 times. Please be sure to start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page as per these guidelines. Another thing: please sign your comments with 4 (~) which willleave your name, date and time. Robvanvee 18:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Go Look

Go look at Vanilla Ice's discography. You'll find what you are looking for. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It would appear to be unnecessary. However I leave this here for you to peruse in your own time in case you missed it in my edit summary when I first reverted you. Robvanvee 04:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Pros and Cons of Cherry Vanilla

Hi, thanks for the note.[1] I didn't create a reference for the addition to article as I didn't think the edit would be controversial as Cherry Vanilla is listed in the liner notes. But I put the Discogs link in the edit summary just in case anyone thought that I was inventing that credit out of whole cloth. It's true that Discogs database can be edited by users, but do the scans of album covers not qualify as primary sources to your mind? I'll see if I can find a different source. I did find a larger scan of the back cover[2], but I don't know that it would be considered any more reliable than the Discogs link. If you have a suggestion, I'll take it. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (séance) 12:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at WP:ALBUMS, I see now that the best practice for citing liner notes is to use {{Cite AV media notes}}, so that's what I'll do. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 13:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Robvanvee 13:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Lil Gotit

Please assume good faith in edits before using a block warning template on talk page, it is confirmed Lil Gotit has a son, based on multiple YouTube videos of Gotit's instagram lives as well as his instagram account. The links to the sources can be found on Lil Gotit's official instagram and YouTube channels, they are here, here, here, here, and here. Here is a link to Lil Gotit's son instagram account operated by his son's mother,If common sense is used, even though the sources are techinically "not reliable" you can infer that Gotit does indeed have a son.

As for why content of rumors regarding Lil Gotit dating Bhad Bhabie were removed, it has not been confirmed officially by neither artists and the relationship is still considered a rumour. So it is un-encyclopedic to add rumors in a biography.

--Proudpakistani11 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read this. It is not my job to source your edits. Robvanvee 05:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Brockhampton

Watched it live. Was waiting for links to be posted.

May I suggest waiting until sources are available and also, please sign your comments. Thanks. Robvanvee 07:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Interscope!

I just reduced the laundry list of artists in the lead section of the Interscope article. I'm sure it will become totally indiscriminate again, but points for trying, right? (And hello!) JSFarman (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Julie, love your work! A much needed job and yes, I'm sure we are going to need to keep an eye on it. I have been removing red-links from record label artist lists lately. Also something that has crept in over the years. Keep well and thanks for the note. Robvanvee 04:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why the interest from your side in label related articles specifically? I'm obsessed with music and that covers my main interest on Wikipedia and obviously record labels fall into that category. Just interested in what motivates other editors around here. Robvanvee 05:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, after sending you the barnstar I looked at your user page and have probably had my question mostly answered. Robvanvee 05:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for the barnstar (which I will display proudly) -- it was the best message I've received in years. Usually when a new message shows up on my talk page it's from someone who is pissed off about an article I reviewed. And right back at you - I am a huge fan of your work. (Your edits show up on my watch list all the time - we have a lot of articles in common.)

And, yes, my background explains my interest in labels, but it's also an interest specific to Wikipedia. I thought a lot of the label articles were either spinny or outdated. And more problematic (for me) was that several were inaccurate and/or didn't reflect the history of the label. The issue was the most dramatic with Interscope; it waasn't really spinny but it didn't cover much of the most signficant history of the label. So I rewrote it. I also did major surgery on RCA and removed the LA Reid hype in the Epic article. (It still needs a ton of work!) I am working on a rewrite of Rounder right now. And someday I will do 4AD! (PS! I just went to check out the Epic article and discovered that the claims of sexual harassment against LA Reid had been diminished. Nice.

ALSO! Are you plugged into the debacle that is List of best-selling music artists? It makes my head explode.

Thanks again! I will look forward to crossing paths again! JSFarman (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "Are you plugged into the debacle that is List of best-selling music artists?" I am now! (added to my watchlist) Till next time Julie. Robvanvee 05:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

...and remove from watchlist! Now that is just way too busy and there are far too many opinions and egos. I prefer things a little quieter. :) Robvanvee 16:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Troubles with possible sock puppet.

Hello. I'm having issues with user TrackerMercurial136 adding unsourced content to sales and certifications tables on album pages, and not being able, for the life of them, to site these properly. Come to think of it, this sock puppet exhibited similar behavior. Can you please give me a hand with this? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean unsourced content? Is the RIAA database not considered a source?? I cite that everytime and give a valid explanation. Also, you're citing old sources that aren't valid. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In regards to your "you're citing old sources that aren't valid" remark, I'm going by sources (such as Billboard) that use Nielsen SoundScan - which specializes in pure sales ... so yes, they are valid! Next, The RIAA posts certifications, not pure sales. Many times they don't match up! Here's an example; Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... has sold 1.1 million units as of 2009 - 10 years later and the RIAA still hasn't given it platinum status. That's why in the Certification field we still have "Gold" and in the Certified units/sales we have "1,100,000". Until (or rather if) the RIAA updates its status, it will stay at Gold. The sales I'm sure have increased in the last 10 years, but until Soundscan updates the current number of sales, it will stay at "1,100,000". Hope this finally makes sense to you. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I understand what you're saying. So I'm guessing Nielsen Soundscan is more reliable than the RIAA since it doesn't keep up with sales. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Also for double albums, each sale a disc gets, it counts as 2 right? TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes made.

I made those changes to "The Eternal Idol" per the sources recited. Check the source 'Allmusic' and you will see that the dates for release were in fact 1 November 1987 (UK) and 8 December 1987 (USA and other global locations). Please return that information back to the information given from the cited source. Thanks (Pward0212 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC))

Not sure what information you want me to return, you have already added the (correct) dates back. So thanks for that. It would be helpful to the reader and other editors if you put a footnote or if need be, a citation next to your change so there is no dispute from over zealous editors like myself. Check out the link I sent you in my welcome for citing sources as just stating it in your edit summary means that someone else further down the line will change it without seeing your edit summary. It also greatly increases the quality of the article and that is what we all should be striving for. Let me know if you need any help and welcome again. Robvanvee 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Added one now to give you an example. Robvanvee 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Robvanvee,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 814 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Requests on record label pages

Hello Robvanvee -

I just want to make sure I'm clear what improvement you're hoping to see before I put much more work into these articles. Your initial edits to 75 Ark, 7th Magnitude, ATIC Records, and Barely Breaking Even removed artists from the roster list because they were not notable (I don't know how much WP:BEFORE was done here, though; other editors who have made similar edits often simply do this as "whack-a-redlink" rather than actually investigating notability in earnest). I think, in general, that a comprehensive artist list is both permissible and desirable; I see it as the chief benefit of a record label article in the first place - the most common need on such articles for the ordinary reader is to know who was signed to them - and is the principal justification for having a list over a category (which naturally is designed to exclude what does not have an article). It's also supported by the list guidelines and by WP:NNC. But in your reversions to my edits, you change the rationale for the action to be about WP:V. Two things about this: one, it's curious that you see a V issue with the redlinked entries, but not the bluelinked ones; and two, who is signed to what label is rarely even remotely a controversial subject - it's something so WP:SKYISBLUE easy-to-verify that, with a few exceptions, people rarely have cause to demand scrupulous citation additions for it. If you've looked at these label pages and noted discrepancies - if we have genuine good-faith reason to think that some of these additions aren't legitimate - I am happy to start looking up the entries and verifying them. But I'd like to be sure that's why you've actually reverted me. I ask this because it has happened to me multiple times before that editors, in a fit of pique, have used V as a WP:LAWYERly stick to beat me with into citation-farming, and it is time-consuming, strikes me as very minimal in terms of value added, and saps my desire to work on the project in other capacities. Chubbles (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles. Thanks for making contact. Just to be clear, the reason I have an issue with the article-less entries (article-less and redlinked) is that there is no way to determine whether they ever were with the label. The blue linked artists require further scrutiny but for now I gave them the benefit of the doubt until I have time to go through those. The problem for me with your argument is that articles end up with loads of non-verifiable entries that, as far as I am concerned completely lower the quality/standard of these articles which we should all be striving towards improving. I find just filling articles with non-notable (it would seem obvious to me that WP:V = mainstream coverage = notability) unsourced entries counter to this. It's not true to apply WP:SKYISBLUE because while you say "easy-to-verify" it does still require verification. And the onus of that, as you know, lies with the editor that adds or restores the info. Next thing you know we have a new editor or IP adding loads of random names to label articles, do we just allow that? I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this as I said in an edit summary, I just wanted to start on one end of the spectrum moving through label articles improving quality, refs etc. even if that meant that some info gets deleted. Robvanvee 13:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you - I don't really see "Next thing you know we have a new editor or IP adding loads of random names to label articles, do we just allow that?" as a serious concern. I have, on very rare occasions, observed this in isolated incidents (the lone example that comes to mind is the repeated addition of an unsigned artist to the Because Music page), but not nearly so much to switch my default from "label affiliation is usually trivially verifiable in legion published works, including the albums themselves, so I'll only remove if I have legitimate suspicion" to "we should preemptively remove any of these that aren't footnoted because WP:V demands it". If the entries are unverified, that is not the same as being unverifiable - to start, Crowhead and Gripper, two artists once signed to ATIC, are verifiable here and here. I do hope in the future that you will seek to verify them before removing them - it is extraordinarily time-consuming to sit and add citations one by one to these lists merely to satisfy single editors, and I'd much rather spend my time verifying genuinely controversial or uncertain content. Chubbles (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree but perhaps we just have different ideas as to what constitutes a quality article. Thanks for initiating this discussion. All the best. Robvanvee 04:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

R.E.M. Deletion

Robvanvee. It seems a pity to miss out especially as it is such an important album and it was high in Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums book. I think Larkin's (Colin Larkin) books generally have more cred than say The Independent newspaper - and maybe a couple of others listed here. It seems a bit USA heavy also - but by all means weave into the text -- I have a copy of the last 5th Concise edition and can copy the text if you want to take a quote? I am not confident yet about what to add from actual text so I leave it to you experts. In the 5th Edition he states " the album has endured as a modern classic". Regards - Muso805 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Muso805 (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

10 reviews is the maximum allowed per article as per this guideline. Robvanvee 13:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, you only need to leave one message at the article talk page regarding this, which you have done. There is no need to repeat the message here as well as a private email to me, thanks. Robvanvee 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"More than a feeling" song use on "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film

i think your deletion is not right; yes, on the 2 sources is not explicit said what you have delete, but:

on source 1 is reported this "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film dialogue:

Bob Wilton : So what do you use to remote view?

Lyn Cassady : I drink. And I find classic rock helps.

Bob Wilton : Any music in particular?

Lyn Cassady : Boston. Boston usually works.

on source 2 is reported that "more than a feeling" song from boston is in the soundtrack of "The Men Who Stare at Goats" film

..even if you dont have see the film, you can suppose is quite true that: "The song was played in the 2009 film The Men Who Stare at Goats, as one of the preferred classical rock songs used by Lyn Cassady to be inspired on the remote view practice"

but; if you don't have see the film.. do you really think you're the right man for delete something (partially) quoted about this? don't you think that is good to check if what you want delete is true or not, instead delete it for excessive zeal?

..i mean, wikipedia is a place where people do edit with good faith, doing the best about the right rules to do this; not a war-game place.

regards. --5.170.46.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read this. Robvanvee 06:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The edits you delete (also about Spielberg film), was in the "In popular culture" section... i think you don't recognize something about that: the "guitar-spaceship" logo of Boston, the something else possible outside our world, the something more that can be accessible through your mind.. all this facts "In popular culture" about Boston band-musics-feelings, say that was not trivia the contributes you have delete. I quote you from thescorecardreview.com "This soundtrack represents all the Dad-rock classic groups, like Billy Squier and Boston. Boston’s legendary “More than a Feeling” is given a clever touch of subtext as it is placed in this particular story that questions the potential power of our minds." --5.171.0.156 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If I am to understand you correctly and you took the time to read the link I sent you, it says to avoid lists of trivial information. Your information also needs to be reliably sourced and IMDb is not considered reliable in this regard as its content is generally user generated. Had you read my edit summary when I reverted your edit, you would have seen that. Robvanvee 10:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, end of story: not matter if you know the song, the film or not, is sure that you care alot about wikirules (except Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means), but nothing about the true. I think that your way to do, that unfortunately a lot of user do, is the reason about wikipedia is a danger for the freedom... even if call itself the free encyclopedia: just an pro-establishment instrument.. very usefull for realize the 1984-book nightmare, instead than an always better life. Thank you for your reply, your time, anyway. Regards. --5.171.0.156 (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Monsta X update

Hi co-editor! I viewed all the edits made by all editors and I compared all the info. they provided since I did all the research and I find this one editor you suspect me of. The editor you suspect me of provided all the updated info. and compared it to what I gathered and what you reverted. If you want, you can make it in what you think is the best for the page but please don't change the info. provided. If you want the exact sources, I can provide it to you. Thank you Robanvee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMXM1426 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe you and have reported you to the same administrator that blocked you yesterday. If you want to edit here (constructively) you will wait out your block and come back with a different mindset, one that is receptive to collaborative and communicative editing. If not, you will not be editing here in a hurry. Robvanvee 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. Hard to believe it has been that long already. Coincidentally, I was reading a conversation on someones talk page yesterday between them and you (and others possibly) regarding good people being forced from Wikipedia either through blocks or various bullying tactics and very often by admin. Made for some interesting reading and is rather disturbing to be honest. Anyway, thanks again for my beautiful sapphire! Robvanvee 14:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Blood Money P1 Genre issues

Alright. I frankly don't understand how Dope's album Blood Money Part 1 is subject to "neutral view". Dope, even in critical reviews for the said album (was about to add ciation/s when found this editied) like https://www.loudersound.com/reviews/dope-blood-money-part-1-album-review and https://newnoisemagazine.com/review-dope-blood-money-pt-1/ among many others say it is "industrial metal". So I don't exactly believe it is biased? Tell me if there's something i don't seem to understand. Thank you. -wikiModer8s -22/11/19 18:26 (GMT)

• WikiModer8s, your edit summary said "There's way too many industrial influences in this album to make it just nu and alternative metal. Most tracks have an electric/industrial tinge with them". That means it's your opinion. Now, if you had added those sources, with a footnote, and marked it as such in your edit summary, it would be a different thing. Thank you. Sorry for butting in, Robvanvee; I'm a big metal fan. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Same, metal fan. I should have been a bit more specific indeed, I work in small chunks which leads to mistakes, apologies for misunderstanding. -wikiModer8s -22/11/19 18:32 GMT

Well then that makes 3 of us. Yes, quite right Drmies, please reliably source your edits WikiModer8s. Robvanvee 18:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiModer8s, If you are going to source your genre addition, the source needs to explicitly describe the album as such. I have gone through both your sources and have yet to find the album described as industrial metal in either (unless I'm missing it). Please quote the claimed sentences here. Robvanvee 18:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nirvana Live Album Genres

Hello. A few days ago you reverted my edits due to lack of sources, but due to the fact that they are live albums, no such source exists. They are performing songs of albums (in the same manner) that are cited as alternative rock so couldn’t I use WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:IAR and add it instead of omitting it when it is obviously the genre? This would be better for the actual encyclopedia rather than blindly following the policy. Thanks, IWI (chat) 10:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again ImprovedWikiImprovment. I get what you are saying especially when they are playing the same songs in the same style. But what about when the artist performs the songs in a different style or "genre" such as Nirvana's Unplugged? as one (not very good) example? Sure we know it's "unplugged" because the name says so but it is also fair to say their approach to the songs is very different to the studio album versions. So much so that folk rock is the first genre listed, the other being the one you added, "alternative". I notice you didn't add the "rock" link to it as the source didn't call it that. They called it alternative music which is pretty vague and as such it just redirects back to alt rock on Wikipedia. My point is that it is not always as black and white as "They are performing songs of albums (in the same manner) that are cited..." as many artists improvise to varying degrees during live performances and as such, where does one draw the line? Who's opinion does one trust? Today you, a more experienced editor may be saying WP:IAR but what happens when another editor, perhaps an IP decides they too are going ignore all rules? It comes back to WP:V in my opinion whether the album is live or not but given that I'd rather not see a genre as apposed to an unsourced one, I'm happy if you would like to start a discussion here, get some input from other editors and perhaps I'm just being ridiculously anal about genre's and their need for reliable sourcing. I guess I just prefer quality over quantity for the encyclopedia. Robvanvee 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand you philosophy of Wikipedia and that is fine. I get what you’re saying about Unplugged; that is a noteworthy exception. The other ones are played in the same style as I can say from experience however this obviously isn’t enough. I don’t think the genre is so important that we should leave it blank when no sources can be found. It’s not something a reader is going to be particularly bothered about seeing a source for, especially considering they are playing songs in the same manner from their studio albums. I may have to start a discussion but I’m not sure if it’s worth my time when I could improve other parts of the project, which is why I thought IAR may be appropriate (after a lengthy discussion they will probably come to the conclusion that I have). I think this is an exceptional circumstance and I don’t think the verifiablity policy is so setting stone that we should omit something that is obvious. Thank you for your detailed reply. IWI (chat) 14:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I already did. More for my own peace of mind because perhaps I'm wrong. Please fill in any details I may have omitted. Robvanvee 14:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s ok. I just added that I cited IAR. IWI (chat) 14:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

That was my first time with an IP farm at ANI and RfPP. Despite the involvement of several admins, who seemed to think something should be done, very little was. I guess it's up to article editors. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been to ANI many times with varying results. Mostly good however I've had a few that just went completely unresolved and the threads get removed due to inactivity. Are you referring to this? I thought we had made some progress with regards to getting pages protected thanks to EdJohnston? We really need an admin to continue protecting as article editors alone end up with the scenario we had a few days ago where you, I and perhaps one or 2 others are spending hours reverting one problematic IP. Robvanvee 15:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, good work all-round on this issue so far! Robvanvee 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an open mind. See you at the next train wreck. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Drmies has taken an interest.[3] Maybe last time too many articles were listed (Talk:The Doors#Selecting the articles to protect). Should only the "core" articles be included? I'm not sure where the IP is located has any relevance; a vandal is a vandal. Any ideas for a Doors vandal page? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put together a list to show the various IPs blocked and articles protected here. I've marked more possible candidates for protection with a " @ ", with the idea to not overwhelm. Are there that should be added/removed? I'm also trying to list past blocks and protected pages for background, if you have any to add. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ojorojo. Sorry for the wait, needed my beauty sleep. Yeah I'm not so sure there are any more or less pressing articles or redirects. From my limited experience with this/these vandal/s there doesn't seem to be a specific or discernible pattern that they follow other than focusing on the Doors articles (and as I said to Drmies on your talk page, a few others too. I've noticed some Pink Floyd pages being targeted). Good job so far on compiling this list and when I am able to later, I'll read through it properly and add what I think needs to be added. Perhaps it should be moved to a more appropriate location as opposed to your 2nd sand box as suggested by Drmies to something like Talk:The Doors/Doors vandal and then we should ping all editors who have been involved to add their 5c as well as to bring this page to their attention? Really glad we have another admin assisting with this! Robvanvee 06:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to get some input first, but will go ahead and post it as Drmies suggested. I'm sure that this vandal has been doing the same with other music articles, as noted on Talk:The Doors#Page protection, but that is another issue. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Great stuff Ojorojo. 2 questions: If this is already on a talk page, where will discussions take place? And secondly, this? Robvanvee 15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the standard practice: add a comment section at the bottom or ? Regarding how many/severity: I would add those that fit the IPs pattern to the "Ongoing recently abused with last date" section. Since there was little action on the last lists (too long?), I would save marking Pending for protection for the worst of them. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

A Message to You from TGoethals78!

Hello, Robvanvee. My name is Tanner Goethals, and here's the message that for doing bad things at Wikipedia. Well, I have high-functioning autism when I was born. My first account is TannerGoethals3, but It got blocked indefinitely because of Sock Puppetry and abuse. But I created 3 accounts including Tanner Goethals, TowerPizza, and FrizzlyXerox to do more adding unsourced content and bad things and worse yet, they all blocked indefinitely. I'm so sorry that I did everything bad on Wikipedia, so please forgive me and cheer me up. :( TGoethals78 (talk) 10:17 PM, 27 November 2019

Using autism as an excuse for disruptive behavior does not interest me. I have reported you for sockpuppetry as you don't seem to want to wait for your original block to expire. Should you actually want to edit here constructively, you will wait out the original block during which time you will reflect on your errors and come back once your block has expired with a new and fresh, productive outlook, something you are clearly avoiding by constantly opening new accounts. Robvanvee 05:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Kinarva

Why did you remove edits on Kinvara page

I left you a descriptive edit summary. Please read this. Familiarize yourself with such policies and editing here will be easy. Also, new conversations go to bottom of the talk page and please sign them when done using 4 tildes (~) as per this guideline. Robvanvee 07:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Roc-A-Fella Records

The source that I removed was a dead link. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.123.80.126 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Then use edit summaries and explain what and why. If the source doesn't work, remove the now unsourced info associated with it. Your edits are proving to be somewhat disruptive though so I may be wasting my time here. Robvanvee 16:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Please refrain from undoing changes on Vita. Her date of birth is correct, I already checked her background and her records, all of the reliable sources that I can find to comfirm her date of birth. So please stop undoing changes, I really appreciate it, thank you Ceedub88 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as you reliably source your edits (which you have yet to do) there shouldn't be a problem. Discogs is not a reliable source. I'll allow you to search for a better source so long before reverting you again. Robvanvee 04:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind when I saw you had been warned for this very issue previously by another editor. Stop citing Discogs! Robvanvee 04:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

if you don't believe me, go to this link here www.mylife.com/lavita-raynor/e700272216318 and tell me that i'm wrong. Do you see her DOB? THAT'S her, created by HER. I hope this convinces you, if not, i don't know what else i can do to make you change your mind. But that's the only source that I can find since there no other reliable sources that you just mentioned to me. Some of those sources do not help like Discogs which is user site where you can just submit or edit information. Ceedub88 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2019

Please keep this discussion where it belongs, on the article talk page. Robvanvee 05:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No source provided

Hi! Thanks for the revert on RCA Records - I was tempted to do the same but noticed that a large part of that paragraph (and of the whole article even) do not contain any references either. Do we need to add more CN tags here, or remove unsourced material, or how is this generally dealt with? -- Evilninja (talk)

Hi Evilninja. It can sometimes be considered controversial, just removing entire paragraphs of unsourced text with a "No source provided" edit summary. I've been reverted by editors who feel a sense of ownership towards the article (though that is not acceptable either, we all own all the articles). Probably better to tag and then go to the article talk page, start a discussion regarding the unsourced content and wait to see who adds their 5 cents. I usually wait a week and if nothing, gone is the questionable material. You may first be asked to see if any sources are relatively easily available from a simple Google search as this is not a blue issue. That is my attitude with regards to all existing info on Wikipedia but my approach when an editor, registered or not, adds any new info to an article is to ensure the policy of verify as strictly as possible hence my reverting that guy with "no source provided. Hope that makes sense? So if you are keen to start a conversation at the talk page I'd support you. Robvanvee 05:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Robvanvee. The WP:BLUE article is a fun read. I'm not to keen to remove material from RCA Records just yet, it was more of a general question and your input has given me some approaches to try next time I encounter things like that. Thanks again for taking the time to respond! -- Evilninja (talk)

Anytime Evilninja, my door is always open. Cool user name BTW. Happy editing! Robvanvee 07:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Blood Harmony Singles

I know I didn’t put sources on my last edit, but if a song is a single and was not before featured on an album, EP, Mixtape or other type, that means it is a single from that album/EP/mixtape. I have not re-added my edits, but I am noting this. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliably source your edits like the rest of us (who are actively trying to improve Wikipedia) and I'll stop reverting you and leaving warnings on your talk page, the likes of which will inevitably result in you being blocked from editing. Robvanvee 06:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This and that...

Hi Ojorojo, tis the season indeed but that crap don't interest me. In case it does you, merry merry and all :)

With regards to your message, to be perfectly honest, I'm not very good at determining good/reliable sources sometimes. It's not one of my strong points around here and perhaps for others too. I'm bringing this up here as..., well I'm sure you know why. Do you mind me asking what your grievances are regarding our fellow Doors editor? He seems to be editing with good intentions and to be honest, I'm really trying to get what seems to be 2 good editors with similar interests to get along. I know you, like me, want the best for the encyclopedia so I applaud your convictions but is there any way we could do this as a team, collaboratively? I'm more than happy to continue this discussion at robvanvee@gmail.com if you feel more comfortable...or not at all too. Thanks for all your hard work around here, it doesn't go unnoticed. Robvanvee 17:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It was my way of saying I don't feel like grinding this into the ground and would rather move on. As I explained at the outset (responding to your ping): "I've been here more times than I care to remember: after a minimal attempt to add something without a suitable source, a long exchange of 'is this good enough?' ensues, although it usually doesn't directly support the material and/or uses a questionable source that isn't properly cited." A prior discussion lasted a month and I don't feel like going there again (notice that most of the comments involved others). It's nothing personal, maybe just a matter of styles. Anyway, as you say, "that crap don't interest me". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo. Aah...it makes more sense now. Fair enough. Shout if I can ever be of assistance. Till next time. Robvanvee 05:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Regard (artist) is nominated for deletion and it’s all your fault!

You reverted everything on Regard (artist), and now it’s nominated for deletion! CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually I never nominated the article for deletion. You clearly have a lot to learn. Pity you don't spend all that energy improving existing articles instead of creating lots of poor quality small ones. Robvanvee 04:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t say you nominated it for deletion. I said you are the reason why. Also, stop removing my discographies! They are a discography! I was just sourcing it when you reverted the discography! Stop it! CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Until you learn the rules and stop acting like a little child, you are going to struggle around here. Stop what you are doing, take a step back and start learning with your eyes from the examples of experienced editors. Things are not going to get easier here unless you start following the rules. Until then I'll be keeping a keen eye. If you want help I'm happy to but you are going to have to drop the attitude and slow things down a tad. Robvanvee 04:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robvanvee. This person should not be allowed to create new articles. I don't know to enforce that without going through ANI (maybe just immediately move them to draft space), but I think a block could be coming soon anyway per WP:CIR. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are telling me Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, this editor has proven to be rather problematic indeed! Robvanvee 18:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn’t mean to be disruptive. I’m just confused. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Discography

For your edits on Alexandra Savior, in your edit summary, you said singles go in discography. But there is no discography. The Wikimedia Commons dosen’t show anything either. I’m confused. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite right, I thought she had a discography page, my apologies for that. However, as with several other articles you have added discography sections to, this list is also unsourced which would have ultimately resulted in reversion. Please feel free to add it back accompanied by a reliable source. Could I also ask that if you have a query such as the one raised here, you use an appropriate (descriptive) header instead of "Ummmmmmmmmmmm", thanks. Robvanvee 09:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to Missing Discography. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever

Hi Robvanvee, you've been doing sterling work trying to help User:CheatCodes4ever. I am extremely concerned about whether they are sufficiently competent to continue editing. Despite the efforts of multiple editors, they clearly don't have any understanding of notability or reliable sources, as evidenced by Angela (character) which I have just nominated at AfD. They have been editing for two years (including as User:Money12122) and seem no closer to even a basic grasp of WP:5P. If anything, they are getting more disruptive. Do you have thoughts? I'm considering an ANI case to get more eyes on the problem, and potentially have them removed from Wikipedia, but would love your take before I do. Best, and have a great Holiday, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello The Mirror Cracked, I will stop creating pages like that (unless “Angela (character)” wins the articles for deletion and is accepted to be an accurate article). I am trying to find articles that don’t exist that could show notability. I’m trying my hardest to source what I can. Sorry. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Mirror Cracked. Yeah, I'm at wits end unfortunately with this person. I really have gone out of my way to explain and caution etc. but it's glaringly obvious that nothing sinks in. This, for example, was an absolute waste of my time as gauging from their reply they completely ignored my message and went straight back the the subject of their "creating articles". I ended that message with "...but for a start I'll need you be receptive to these issues" and were they? No! So unfortunately ANI may be our only solution. I just wanted to make sure that when we do, we can at least show we tried every possible option but in the end this editor refuses to listen. Robvanvee 21:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robvanvee. I do appreciate all the work you've put in, and the resulting frustration. I'll likely open up an ANI report in the next day or so. I'll let you know when that happens. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Awesome The Mirror Cracked, and many thanks for all your efforts here too. I'll definitely be adding my 5c to that report so hit me up when you do. Cheers! Robvanvee 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competency_issue_with_CheatCodes4ever. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Mirror Cracked. Good stuff! I'm away camping with very sporadic signal but back home in a few hours. Will join conversation then. Robvanvee 08:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey TMC. Looks like our friend has concocted a plan to keep editing...sigh... Robvanvee 06:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Thanks for adding to the ANI report. I was in the process of adding myself and got an edit conflict with you! He clearly has no intention or ability to stay away, and his IP edits had exactly the same problems as always. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey The Mirror Cracked. I've never seen a ANI case take this long. After 72 hours of inactivity the case will be archived hence my prompting admin attention again just now. I do wish they would just get on with it already! Robvanvee 05:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's baffling that despite a clear consensus for action, nothing has been done. I'd almost rather they close it with an explanation of why, than just leave it to drift like this. Thanks for the extra prompt you added. If it does get archived, I intend to file another ANI report the next time we have a problem (which will likely be within a few hours). I've seen a couple of instances of that happening in the last few weeks on ANI, and it can get results. Let's hope it doesn't come to that and your prompt gets an admin to engage. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mirror Cracked, a satisfactory final result I'd say! Good job for all your hard work with regards to this matter. Robvanvee 08:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you for your work on this too. Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Jess Harnell

It seems pretty absurd to me to have to post a ref in an article twice just for an infobox parameter, but ok.

--O-M-GOSH! 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh my! Please accept my sincere apology. Usually personal sections sit above discography sections in BLP articles. I never realized that was lower down. Thanks for reverting my hasty edit. Robvanvee 22:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, it was an easy mistake to make. --O-M-GOSH! 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Only women bleed is not 3:05

The lengths I stated are correct and you can easily find proof. But your 3:05 length does not exist, the single edit is 3:29 and the album version is 5:50. If you can find a reliable source for the 3:05 edit then list it with other two as "(edit)". P.S plenty of other people have used discogs as a source and it's being accepted. AdamBendelow (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The lengths you stated probably are correct however given your overall contributions and your tendency to either not source or source poorly (I'll get to that) I reverted you. If you feel that strongly about the running times of a song I won't revert the edit again but I'll remind you to reliably source your edits. Discogs may not be cited as per this guideline and this discussion. Other people's citing the website does not make it ok and is most likely due to their inexperience so please refrain from doing so, thank you. If you have any questions I'm happy to help. Robvanvee 12:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)