Open main menu

User talk:Malcolmxl5

Orlando's Summer of LoveEdit

Malcolmxl5, I just came back to wikipedia editing and noticed that Orlando's Summer of Love stub had been deleted.

(01:03, 27 February 2018 Malcolmxl5 deleted page Orlando's Summer of Love (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando's Summer of Love)

It's not the end of the world as Beacham Theater covers a small portion of the subject. However it's getting quite large and cannot capture the rest of the material that a well written article on the subject would need to have. Florida breaks in the long term would probably not be appropriate for all of it either.

To the point, I found the supporting assertions of responding editors-some administrators very highly dubious. I have dealt with at least one them numerous times and in my experiences, he does it nearly every interaction I have with him. Can this be resolved without making a big deal out of it or is deletion review the only option here?

After the stub was made, an editor moving to merge in March 2017 questioned whether the subject term was used by only one author. More sources were offered to the editor, and a second move to merge was made. More sources were added for the pending notability discussion as shown below (apologies for the formatting error):


  • 768073072

2017-03-01 Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article. Merged to Orlando, Florida#Local culture

  • 768077605

2017-03-01 Undid revision 768073072 by Ahecht more sources can be added outside of Orlando

  • 768079852

2017-03-01 merge to|Orlando, Florida#Local culture|discuss=Talk:Orlando, Florida#Merger proposal|date=March 2017

  • 768080830

2017-03-01 Sources added for notability discussion

Per WP:FAILN this editor requested that the author provide additional sources (I suppose I am the default "subject expert" too but there may be others or better subject experts on WP). That edior was offered and then received many additional sources that should have easily satisfied any WP:FAILN concern. Despite the additional reliable sources added to demonstrate WP:N and WP:GNG for the requesting editor, the merge discussion was opened at Talk:Orlando.

It appears that the original question of WP:FAILN was the only concern put forth to continue the merge discussion and then AfD discussion continued following that.

However, the specific WP:FAILN complaint was that the term "Orlando Summer of Love" was coined by only one author in 1998. However, there is a 2017 source from a different author which was published between the two WP discussions (as discussed below). This source new shows that this concern of the term being used by only one author is unfounded and that there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this subject.

I didn't oppose that merge and a (ridiculous) line now in a sea of garbage was added to Orlando,_Florida#Local_culture while it was decided (recently corrected).

This merge action put the first merge editor into the delete camp when it was re-nominated on 12 February 2018.

In sum, upon renomination, the first editor found that there was (uncontested) reliable and verifiable evidence that the subject existed. But next they complained that there were then fifteen separate references describing the specific time period in Orlando and its impact on local, state, national and international culture where they could read a quote from many sources to know its relevance in establishing this subject was a real thing.

He observed that "references, each directly quoting enough of the source's content that it's dancing right on the edge of the line dividing "fair use" quotation from outright copyright violation," Clearly, this editor was unwilling to read the numerous references he complained about. This editor claimed and summed his complaint as "the biggest reference bomb they'd ever seen". However the WP:OVERCITE accusation was actually a Notibility bomb accusation per the link he supplied. Yet this editor was apparently unable read any of the quoted citation text that established the relationship of the reference to the subject. The implication of his accusation is that "the sources were deceptively added to support notability without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic." However, the editor acknowledged the alleged reference bomb "is a lot more than we need to support a one-sentence substub which just says "this topic existed, the end".

Following a relisting one year later on 19 February 2018, A second editor, who wanted redirection, found the current stub "worse than useless" but that the links would be useful to someone writing a history of music in Orlando. The Irony should not be lost on wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, where any editor could somehow expand a tiny stub into a larger well-referenced article on this period of electronic music history in Orlando--which this article was intended to do someday. This editor found the mention at Orlando# Local culture sufficient for this subject.

A third editor claimed that some of the one sentence might be useful but had "tried to search for this umteen ways, there's just no such thing, not under this name at any rate. This is just something someone made up one day."

Assuming good faith, here, any English reader can establish that this subject exists and is not made up by reading the unchallenged assertion of the first editor or any of the quotations in the alleged "reference bomb". What reasonable person makes the claim of it's just made up in the face of a real or imagined reference bomb and is it actually a reference bomb if two separate editor/administrators are going to come in and make such an unfounded and offensive claim of just making it up?

The other irony here is that not even one of the umpteen super through searches of the internet by this editor apparently included a search engine (or specifically Google). After ten seconds, (eight of those typing the search term and one to press enter) I was able to find new source from November 2017 that was not even included in the aforementioned "reference bomb". There may be more. I stopped here with this one :

The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks. Fast-forward to 2017 and he is doing just that, but in the form of gigantic parties.

It's an extremely rare event that can mix a local history lesson with nonstop ecstatic dancing, but AAHZ nights are just that...Collins explains that this is a party with a purpose, a celebration of an era when Orlando was ground zero for a new type of dance music, and a survey of how that music has changed over the years: "Florida, and Central Florida in particular, gravitated heavily to all types of genres that relied on a type of break-beat from electro, techno, freestyle, Miami bass to straight-up U.K. rave breaks. Those influences went on to develop what would soon become the signature 'Florida break-beat sound.'

The fourth editor for delete echoed the completely and totally absurd assertion of the third editor--if true--which it very obviously was not.

The last editor offered comment that notability of the subject was an issue and that references outweighing the body were problematic (a rule or guideline was not specified) and uploaded a screenshot-- apparently to make this stub into some sort of example. see here:

I submit that the citations may need to merge, but it does not make any sense to merge them in a stub that needs further expansion. Some large quotes may not be entirely necessary (if still online) and the two sources submitted to date that specifically name the subject of the article are both local sources. The sources provided verify the name and reliably describe this subject and show how the subject fits into eight or more different subject articles already established on wikipedia.

Is this something you are able to sort out? Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5, I opened a request at Requests_for_undeletion#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love but clarification on the exact reason for your deletion is required to determine what needs to change in a new entry. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Johnvr4, I would suggest that you simply write a more substantial article citing significant coverage in three or more reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Malcolmxl5, Thank you for the reply.
The suggestion that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates WP:AADD#Article size and WP:STUB among others.
I do not intend to argue here. I do intend to have a policy-based-discussion on requirements for restoration, and improvement but I sure do not want to have to WP:REHASH any of it again.
As I stated above. There are other policy-based discussions that I beg you to take pause to review in regard to your reply to me, the tally of the discussion votes, and in contemplation to resolve this issue without further discussion with admins that appear to blatantly ignore policy in discussion, comment and action.
The deletion discussion rests entirely on WP:AADD.
I don't believe there was ever any legitimate concern of whether this subject would even remotely Fail the significant coverage test of WP:GNG.
No one should deny that the actual concern put forth was that the term for this subject was used in only one source. Talk:Orlando,_Florida#Merger_proposal There are now Two sources WP:SUSTAINED sources for that term. IMHO, the issue now is whether the subject should--per two sources separated by 20 years--be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" or not.
The suggestion that that any of these fifteen (now sixteen) reliable sources are not significant coverage to demonstrate WP:N is Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources.
Please note that there is some WP:OWH and cross-wiki harassment. I do not know from whom.
Several well-meaning administrators have advised action inconsistent with policy. One has attempted turn my policy-based request into some type of content dispute and then abused his tools to defend his position. I find this behavior unacceptable. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, Johnvr4, it seems that there has been some discussion already. My role was to assess the consensus at the deletion discussion. It seemed to me that there was no desire among the participants to keep the page, that the consensus was to delete. If you feel I was wrong in that (and that’s fine), you can ask the community to review my assessment at WP:DRV. If you want to have a policy-based-discussion on requirements for restoration and improvement, that is probably best done at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Lastly, I am perturbed that you are suffering some cross-wiki harassment. If you let me or another admin know a bit more about this then we may be able to do something about it. P.S. I was just writing this reply when I got your note below that you have referred my closure to WP:DRV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Malcolmxl5, I may have jumped the gun a little bit with my DRV request. I got frustrated by another message at RFU today that seemed pretty final so I opened a DRV. The decision that I think was wrong was opening the AfD without acknowledging the premise of why the merge request was opened. It wasn't easily linked and even I had trouble finding it. I'll edit my comment about your willingness to participate. I would certainly not blame you at all if you do not want to engage. I am for the record rewriting it but I think it would have to go at Orlando, FL and also have substantial changes TDB. The helpfulness of the addition of a second source using the term has been questioned too. I suppose DRV can figure it out for us.
I'm not sure about the harassment or if it even qualifies as harassment. Nor, do I know, or have any suspicion of who is responsible or whether they are still editing. The only info available to me is the date of the AfD, The close date of the screen shot upload, and the close date of the off-wiki posting Thank you very much. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Johnvr4, we’ll see what the DRV brings. I’ll take a look at the harassment info. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: We're still no closer to resolving the original content dispute disguised as a policy concern at AfD. See:User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#Orlando_Summer_of_Love_DRV_closure_Comment. Thoughts? Thanks, Johnvr4 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Johnvr4, clearly there is no support for the arguments that you have put forward. However, I do see some helpful comments. These are: 1) to prepare a new article about the Summer of Love in draft space, I would suggest that you choose your three best sources and draft an article using these; do not include long quotes in the citations, summarise the content of those sources in your own words in the article; 2) include or expand prose about the Summer of Love in another article, Orlando, Florida#Culture has been mentioned, or 3) write a broader article into which prose about the Summer of Love can be incorporated, the music scene in Orlando, Florida has been mentioned. It’s time now, I think, to move on and follow one of those pathways. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to doEdit

I am not sure how this should be handled. But the reference here to the deletion discussion that you closed is to a different person's bio. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C593:9124:B2F8:CCB5 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that’s right. There was originally an article about a minor league hockey player on that page, which was deleted after a discussion. Subsequently, an article about a baseball player with the same name has been created there. It’s not a problem, just part of the history of the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:

Please remove talk page access on User talk: Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for protecting Daniel A. Dailey. I understand why you waited until now, and I was afraid the disruption would continue... James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I held off as it had gone quiet but put it on my watchlist and here we are... Perhaps they now will start talking about the edit they want on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Malcolmxl5 It makes me wonder... Could there perhaps be socking imvolved? (The 2 IPs and the user all made the same disruptive edits.) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It’s probably the same person but they’re just editing both logged in and logged out. Editing logged out is not against policy by itself (though it’s curious that the first IP is a proxy) and it only rises to the level of socking if, for example, they are evading a block or undermining consensus. Their editing has been disruptive though and they need to start talking on the article talk page about the changes they want to make and why (I am hoping they are reading this!). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Malcolmxl5".