User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 10

Phil Emmanuel

No references after 1995.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Many available sources after. Just a matter of sifting through to find good ones that focus on Phil. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Love Tattoo (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Love Tattoo (musician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Tattoo (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I come late in the game as I have a disagreement with Duffbeerforme on his handling of another thing. However on this point I agree 100% with him. This page is a keep. I would gladly bring in my vote if it has any weight at this point in time.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.41% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for February: Black women Mathematicians and statisticians Geofocus: Island women #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Original 2 Live Crew

Hi friend, I noticed you redirected the album The Original 2 Live Crew, however you kept it in the timeline below and when I clicked on it I ended up on the groups page. It is super confusing, and slowed me down on the research I am making on the group. Since no vote were taken on it I reverted it. Either delete it from the time line or keep it at is. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bit by Bats

Well done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mañana (band)

Hi Duffbeerforme, just wanted to reach out as you have found references for a couple of articles I've nominated for deletion, and was wondering what your approach for finding these references is? I usually just google around, and if I don't find anything within the first few pages I assume there isn't much else to be found. I'm hoping that understanding your approach for finding references will save me from nominating articles for deletion that don't need to be. Thanks for the advice! London Hall (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

London Hall. I found those through Factiva. Not openly available to everyone. Any Australian can get access through the national library of australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. London Hall (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Gary Haney Revisions

Hello, duffbeerforme: Made revisions on Gary Haney to address advert, primary, and coi tags. Wanted to let you know I am the primary contributor to this article and am guessing I'm the person you're addressing in the COI? Do not know if this is conflict of interest, but I am a PhD candidate at the University of Utah and Haney's work is widely cited in my forthcoming doctoral dissertation (hence the extensive notes on him). Removed awards and honors section and uncited statements. Also removed a lot of promotional sounding adjectives. Haven't removed the tags as I wanted to hear your feedback first. Vincent Wedge (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

All of the articles you created are overly promotion. Your sourcing is dishonest. Sources do not back up your peacocked claims. All reads like paid PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: If you could please cite specifics I'd be happy to respond and make appropriate edits. "Dishonest sourcing" and "peacocked" claims also seems a bit ad hominem, but I'm going to assume your goal, as is mine, is to make wikipedia better and get rid of promotional articles. Am 100% with you. Just please give specifics for your claims and I or the community will make the changes. The term "Supertall buildings" is an architectural designation. Is that what you are referring to? If a person who designed the highest building in the Middle East is not a notable figure, I'm not sure who is?Also, please post your comments on the article talk page for the sake of transparency. Am copying and pasting them there so others can see your arguments. Cheers. Vincent Wedge (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent Wedge

Vincent Wedge, can you please NOT copy templates etc.? You marked this talk page as edited by a COI editor, which I suppose makes some sense, but it also indexes this page in that category. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Meher baba

Hi, Duffbeerforme, greetings:)

You may choose to chime in at this t/p thread.Will be interested in your views, since you have came across the mess earlier! Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Carl Orr

Who is Dick Hughes?Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Dick Hughes (musician). Artifact left behind in my development. Thanks for pointing out my oversight, I have removed it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ARIA Music Awards of 2004, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerard Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (2001 musical) Suggestion

@Duffbeerforme, you mighit not have seen the additional reference and comments on Talk:The_Wizard_of_Oz_(2001_musical). Would you mind giving it another look and hopefully we can get a consensus. Boneymau (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

There can be little doubt that Rick570 is who we think he is. See here. Eddaido (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, becoming even more obvious, time for a new SPI methinks. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cellosaurus issues

Hi I answered your comments on the COI page.

In term of the Cellosaurus page itself: I left the "COI" tag which is objectively true, but took away the 2 other tags as: For "primary" I already added 2 secondary sources and can add many more if you wish as the number of places/articles where the Cellosaurus is described is increasing excponentially (of all the resouces I created this is the one with the highest growth rate, primarily because there is no other independant (of vendors) data bases on cell lines).

For "notability": if you wish I can send you the Google Analytic statistics, but in 2 years on the ExPASy server it already reached 2 million pages (see tweet below) and in term of the pageviews on Wikipedia the Cellosaurus page is seen an average of 174 times per month since its creation. Nothing comparable to popular pages, but if I compare it to that of the individual cell lines pages that exist in Wikipedia, it is in the same ball park. So I am not sure what is your criteria for notable in term of pages describing scientific resources. I checked for PROSITE which I established in 1988 and of course its 4-5x times higher but that's a resource used for already 30 years!! And in term of papers citing Cellosaurus entries this is becoming enormous as it the resource used for cell lines identification in many journal in the last year. At the latest count there were already >1'500 papers with Cellosaurus RRIDs.

https://twitter.com/Cellosaurus/status/987301545195819009

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2016-05&end=2018-06&pages=Cellosaurus

Amb sib (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Cellosaurus. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Pardon this, I know enough not to template the regulars, so I won't slap a {{uw-paid}} template on your talk page. I'm an OTRS volunteer. You have been identified in an OTRS communication as someone who has been paid to edit in behalf of Oculus, or something like that. If this is true, would you please put the mandatory disclosure on your user page? This transparency is a mandatory legal requirement for having a user account on Wikipedia. See WP:PAID for details. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist, don't feed the trolls. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This didn't seem like a troll. Copies of payment documentation was offered. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Scary Mother vs Scarymother

Consider Scary Mother and Scarymother. They cover the same group, the former article was created by you back in November 2016, the latter was created by @Varan70: a single purpose account, back in December 2015. My first impulse is to be bold, ala WP:MERGEINIT intro, and then make the 2nd a redirect to the 1st. However I seek your advice. The 2nd has a lot of unverified information with almost 80% of its current content supplied by the article's creator. Varan70 then blanked the whole page; within half an hour of starting that article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

2nd reads like a fan work of original research. Too much unsourced and opinion. It's focus on Dave Sykes seems very telling. I'm boldly redirecting it. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2)

Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Duffbeerforme - I apologize for apparently handling the addition to the draft in the wrong way. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Braeden Wright discussion

Hi Duffbeerforme-- thank you for contributing to the discussion re: Braeden Wright. I left you a comment on your delete response and am hoping you could examine my thoughts in regards to your argument-- there are two particular points I made that I hope bring new light to your views. Please consider them. Looking forward to hearing from you and happy editing. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel as though you have personally attacked me on multiple occasions, can we talk?

Hi Duffbeerforme-- As I have stated in our ongoing AfD discussions-- on multiple occasions, I feel as though you have personally attacked me when I have been speaking to you in good faith. Multiple times, even after I felt personally attacked, I have asked you very calmly and openly if we could take down the level of vitriol in the discussion. I understand that AfDs can get particularly heated-- especially when there is disagreement-- but as you know, this is a place for attacking arguments, not the editors themselves WP:NPA not matter what their personal history is or how much you disagree with their analysis or viewpoints. On multiple occasions I found you very dismissive and rude, especially in the beginning of our conversations. I took a great effort of time to explain to you specifically my thoughts with your arguments in good faith. I tried to be as collegial and respectful as possible to you. That is why I wrote in such detail. That took a lot of time and care-- as it is much easier to be dismissive, short, and rude. When you repeatedly and, what felt like to me, very flippantly, referenced Too Long Did Not Read TLDR it felt very dismissive and rude. You even wrote "yet another epic"-- which felt very rude and dismissive of my personal writing style, trying to dismiss my arguments as too verbose to have any warrant or value. I took extra care to speak with you in detail and in nuance to the best of my abilities, in a friendly and collegial way, and I felt you took direct aim at that when it in fact was me trying to show you respect and worthiness of an appropriate response. More alarmingly, I feel you have also claimed I have done disparaging things as fact, when they are your opinion and I wholeheartedly believe are untrue. You stated on another user's talkpage that I "lied" about content in articles in the Lola Lennox AfD in a pursuit of having him reopen the debate (which he examined your claim and decided against your request). That is disparaging my personal character and actions, now on another user's talkpage in the community. I believe that is a very specific WP:NPA and not only does it make me feel harassed by you-- it is very specifically not allowed under community guidelines and is potential grounds for blocking. I also feel as though you are WP:HOUNDING both of the articles I have created in an effort to get them deleted or weaken them. I don't mind obvious corrections and edits-- as you have made some that have helped both articles, and in fact both AfDs have made the pages stronger-- but for you to tag Conflict of Interest on Braeden Wright and state as fact in you edit comments "author has COI"-- that is stating something about my character as fact which is not true and has no proof. I have unequivocally stated even before you added this that I do not have COI and I again stand by that. It feels like yet another personal attack and that you are hounding pages I have created, and I am afraid you will continue to hound any more pages I create in the future. I have several articles I have been working on and was excited to contribute them to the community for consideration-- but now I feel I will have to contend to constant personal attack and potential article stalking from you-- and I sincerely hope that that will not happen. It makes my experience here feel very frustrating and sad. At least I had one editor in the Braeden Wright AfD finish with "Thanks for your hard work!". That makes me want to keep going. But I want to move forward having resolved this with you and obviously it needs to be addressed on your talk page first. Once again, we are both here to make Wikipedia better, and I want to be your friend and cordial with you. I hope you consider my feelings here and take some time to think about your response, and in the meantime, consider a truce. I consider everyone on Wikipedia a friend, but I also will not stand for anything other than for everyone to be treated that way, including myself. Thanks very much. Hope you have a good day. x Soulman1125 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting you read TL:DR was a helpful suggestion. Yes the second time was sarcastic but stills relevent given your ongoing bludgeoning (read that one too). As for the lying comment, "there is a reference from Billboard, perhaps the most major international music news source, in which the subject of this article is the main topic of discussion" is quite simply not true. Annie is the main topic. Later, "It was the entire point of the article". No it was a side part, Annie was the main point. If you don't want to get called out for telling porkies then you should stick with the truth. Speaking of rude and dismissive, it would be best if you don't lecture down to people and dismiss other editors "lack of knowledge". On COI, I'll put my money where my mouth is. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Incompetent Speedy deletion nomination of Jake Mason

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jake Mason requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.Brian Griffin (talk • contribs)

I'm seeing the article's claim that the Jake Mason Trio was nominated for a 2018 Aria award, but as best as I can tell, the 2018 nominations in Best Jazz Album have yet to be announced. So I'm flagging that as dubious. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards of 2018. Did you try what links here on the Mason page? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cardno

Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cardno, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The text blatantly copied and pasted from https://www.cardno.com/about-us/who-we-are/our-history/ has been WP:REVDEL-d. Unfortunately this included obvious good faith attempts to improve the article. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Block evasion

In that edit summary, I was referring to the edits by 110.159.65.169, not you personally. I've noticed your name around the place (can't quite think where now) and I can't imagine you'd ever do such a thing. Graham87 12:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brock Downey

The article Brock Downey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BEFORE-> Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but can I ask. I cannot find an independent reliable source for their song charting. Maybe not my day for looking, but can you oblige? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ARIA report showing their entry into the charts. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But a one week charting at 91 makes them notable? C'est la vie! Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Duffbeerforme. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Duffbeerforme. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)