Line 332: | Line 332: | ||
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) |
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) |
||
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band |
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band |
||
::::I believe I have repeated all of this to you multiple times. For a band or musician to be notable enough to mention on wikipedia, they need to meet certain '''notability guidelines'''. If a source alleges that a certain band, say, is 'the greatest band in the world', and yet there is not much other evidence available to support this, then that band, according to wikipedia standards, does '''not''' meet notability guidelines. |
::::I believe I have repeated all of this to you multiple times. For a band or musician to be notable enough to mention on wikipedia, they need to meet certain '''notability guidelines'''. If a source alleges that a certain band, say, is 'the greatest band in the world', and yet there is not much other evidence available to support this, then that band, according to wikipedia standards, does '''not''' meet notability guidelines. For example, a google search for the band my 31st demerit, which you allege to be among the 'popular'/notable bands of Bangladesh, reveals just and and only '''one''' article; all other material about the band found online is self-published content, such is their 'popularity'. One single article simply does not qualify as enough 'support' to establish notability on wikipedia. And since you ask, my intentions are simply to ensure that articles here adhere to wikipedia guidelines. And also to ensure that advertisers/possible members of those bands themselves/friends of the band/ don't try to weasel up the importance of certain virtually non-existent subjects in articles by using just one or two "sources" and tons of peacock terms. So unless you can find multiple third-party sources to support your claims concerning these bands and their alleged ''popularity'', rather than just edit-warring continuously, you may want to review your own intentions. [[User:Ricose|Ricose]] ([[User talk:Ricose|talk]]) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Your kitten is comment! == |
== Your kitten is comment! == |
Revision as of 01:21, 5 April 2013
Archives | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikipedia:Babel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Search user languages |
What a jungle!
I'd never imagined you were writing so much stuff! Well I might as well pollute your talk page to divert some of your attention :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird34 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
template links
Hi, this is about district-related navboxes related to Uttar Pradesh. They all had links to similar navboxes on other districts of the same state. But, it seems you replaced all the links to navboxes of other districts to mere links to article pages of them, in edits such as this. The edits do not have much info in edit-comments ("links"). Can you please tell me why you made these changes? Was this based on some kind of guidelines or policies related to navboxes? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 2#Templates linking to other templates. According to WP:NAVBOX: "navigation templates, sometimes called navboxes, are boxes containing links to a group of related articles". benzband (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for sharing this info. I kept the links of other navboxes, because I saw many more such uses, which still exist for similar navboxes related to other states of India. Right now, I won't be changing all such templates to remove all those template links, but, will do it later. Regards.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
bot issues (maybe!)
hi, i noticed today that the bots seem to have accidentlly messed up the authors of the references on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishma (or if it was done manually then i don't know, but i think it was bots!) it hasn't happened to the references on other wiki articles i a working on, (but that could be as fewer references could be found online and used for those articles.) for example, in the above named article someone called "Hafez Ahmed" was wrongly credited for writing an article by "Haque Faruq Ahmed" and so on. i don't know how to fix this as i don't understand the ref tag things! more information is given on the talk page about this. i was wondering why this happened or if i simply didn't understand something. Faisal961 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again! I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
- Yobot, a bot, has grouped multiple instances of the same reference with this edit. To group the refs it used
<ref name="ReferenceA">…</ref>
for the first instance, then replaced all identical subsequent instances with
<ref name="ReferenceA" />
(see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once). I've just changed the name to "jjdin.com", with this edit though since that's the name of the website in the reference. - But i saw no changes relating to authors. Could you clarify?? Maybe whoever inserted the refs in the first place got the author wrong? benzband (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- thank you for the helpful link, i will look at it sometime. i can't speak for others, but in my case i always just insert any citation link within ref tags is all, don't have any clue about adding author names and stuff (those are always there within the references anyway!) noticed that some links that i also used in the article at some point got authors may have gotten added automatically, as no user has mentioned in edit summaries about editing author names but then again who knows? at some time i may try to fix the glaringly obvious wrong citations, that article now literally has more references than lines so don't really have the patience to go through all of the refs to correct all the authors LOL! Faisal961 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- A way of neatly formatting references is using Wikipedia:Citation templates, of which the most common are probably
{{cite web}}
, {{cite news}}
, {{cite book}}
and {{cite journal}}
. For instance, {{cite web|url=http://example.com|title=Example|author=Joe Bloggs|date=2 January 2012|work=The Daily Example|publisher=Example Media Group|accessdate=7 March 2013}}
produces:
- Joe Bloggs (2 January 2012). "Example". The Daily Example. Example Media Group. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
- Regards, benzband (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Benzband, Thank you so much for your help with my referencing issue. I wish that I was better with all of these rules; but I guess it's learn as I go. Many thanks for being such a patient Wikipedia mentor.
Sofiabrampton (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________
Rudy Buttignol - adding info for a ref in the ref section
Hello Benzband.
I am writing to ask you about how to do something on "Rudy Buttignol,"
Re paragraph 5 under "Career" I added something about his outreach mandate and then added an online ref to an event that took place about a week ago.
It looks ok in the "Career" section; however the format is not correct in the reference section at the end of the piece. This is what it looks like. It's ref # 17:
How can it be corrected?
Many thanks for this help and all of your past help.
Sofiabrampton (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again!
- When you use templates (such as
{{cite web}}
) you have to remember to close them using }}
. Typing {{cite web |url=http://theomega.ca/2013/03/10/knowledge-network-ceo-discusses-its-evolution/}}
gives:
- ^ http://theomega.ca/2013/03/10/knowledge-network-ceo-discusses-its-evolution/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)
- But there is a warning notice because you must add a
|title=
parameter. It's also good to add some more info from the cited webpage such as author, date, and so on (a full list of possible parameters for this template is in it's description page: Template:Cite web). That can be done like this: {{cite web |url=http://theomega.ca/2013/03/10/knowledge-network-ceo-discusses-its-evolution/ |title=Knowledge Network CEO discusses its evolution |date=March 10, 2013 |author=Devan C. Tasa |publisher=Thompson Rivers University |work=The Omega.ca}}
which gives:
- ^ Devan C. Tasa (March 10, 2013). "Knowledge Network CEO discusses its evolution". The Omega.ca. Thompson Rivers University.
___
Thanks again, Benzband. In admiration,
Sofiabrampton (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
help for wiki articles that read like gushing advertisements?
hi. . . . .may i ask for your assistance please with some heavily biased wikipedia articles?
you may recall a revert you performed here earlier today, that was one such article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehreen_Mahmud&action=history
some articles on wikipedia were written heavily peppered with unjustified levels of praise, over-glorified adjectives/fantastic claims and information with no decent reference about their subjects (this includes one or two 'bands' that nobody has probably ever even heard of, who have no albums out and using one newspaper article with a concert review as the sole reference. . . definitely not notable enough to even be on wikipedia.) i tried to make these articles fit the wikipedia mold (neutral point of view, with sufficient reference, and concise rather than rambling on with praises, content that is not verified and exceptional claims, promo style) but today someone reverted 'all' my edits.
in the article about bangla rock, the intro alone gives undue importance to about 3 or 4 listed acts whose contribution is not as great as claimed, and there is an entire paragraph (with no sources at all) dedicated to a band that few, if anyone at all, has ever heard of.
when i reverted the articles back with an explanation, all my work was again almost instantly undone and i was sent a message claiming that i was performing 'disruptive editing'. since there was that instant revert of all my edits, now the problematic articles all read like free wikipedia advertisements about their subjects again, many even containing untrue claims. i have not re-reverted the edits but thought it best to ask you as a wikipedia authority to step in if possible and review the matter.
peacock/unverified content articles list - (i put the history links rather than direct links so you can see/compare the edits i made faster, my edits are under the name 'Ricose', and the other user who reverted the edits is 'Kmzayeem'.)
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuad_al_Muqtadir&action=history
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehreen_Mahmud&action=history
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mim_Bidya_Sinha_Saha&action=history
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_(musician)&action=history
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rezwana_Choudhury_Bannya&action=history
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfaze&action=history
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_Free_(band)&action=history
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feedback_(band)&action=history
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoic_Bliss&action=history
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De-illumination&action=history
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunno&action=history
12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshi_rock&action=history
Hi Ben, okay, so i have tried to reason with this person about tone and puffery, yet they still insist, in particular, on continuing to keep a "peacock" tone to these two articles below, claiming 'supported by references' is justification enough to keep the articles that way (!) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De-illumination&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfaze&action=history
They also keep adding the same few (completely, completely) non-notable garage bands back to this list of 'popular bands of Bangladesh' on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshi_rock&action=history
A minor mention in a concert review or something similar does mean that they are "popular"!
It would be great if you could watch these articles for a bit, thanks. Ricose (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I've told you several times not to remove the reliable sources from the articles but you kept on doing that, you have done it several times in the articles De-illumination and Warfaze (most recently this) and probably in other articles as well! Secondly, you have been removing more contents than you should, going with your edits it has been seen that all of your removals have not been puffs and peacocks. Besides, puffs and peacocks can be reworded but you have been removing the informations about the subjects giving the reason of removing puffs. Thirdly, if you really think that there are some contents which are violating WP:OR then you can simply add the maintenance templates in those articles, give a chance to other editors to verify those contents, removing the contents is not the only solution! --Zayeem (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Various internet archives are available for "reviving" dead links (for instance the Wayback Machine). I have made some edits to the three articles, which you may be interested in:
- Many articles relating to Bangladeshi music are in pretty bad shape. I just had a look at Stone Free (band) and have nominated it for deletion for lack of notability. benzband (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was actually asking for this kind of edit from User:Ricose for about two weaks! I'll try to fix the articles soon. --Zayeem (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, do you think you could possibly please not keep on adding back these just about completely unknown bands (Stone free pilots, 31 demerits, etc, or whatever they all are called) from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_rock Being barely mentioned in smoe random article does not make them "notable" enough to be on wikipedia, and that too, listed as "among the most popular bands." When they become notable, please feel free to add them back, but for the time being, please refrain from doing this. I have already explained numerous times why. Ricose (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you take a look at benzband's edit in the page?? I don't know what's your definition for the word popular but I have only added the bands which are supported by the sources. There was another band named Hemorrhage which I removed when I couldn't find any source. --Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, I and benzband have both posted a large amount of literature on your talk page concerning wikipedia policies and notability guidelines, and even more explanations are given in the edit histories. i think it's better if you go back and read all those, rather than edit-warring with me. Ricose (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you need to learn which are puffs and which are not! I asked you to take a look at benzband's edit on the page, he didn't tagged the contents which you are constantly removing from the articles. And you are still removing the references from the articles as you removed 5 references from reliable sources here. I don't know whether this is intentional or not, but please stop vandalizing those articles! --Zayeem (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- My friend, as a matter of fact, benzband actually nominated the entire page about that 'stone free' band or whatever they are for deletion...this being because they don't really qualify in terms of notability, much less qualify for being listed as a 'popular' band in an article about Bangla rock music. non-notable bands must indeed be removed. if they were that popular, please prove it with solid sources about the individual bands. a fleeting mention in an article is not a solid source. and please note that there is a distinct difference between vandalising a page, and trying to make them conform to wikipedia standards. i guess you would have known that had you taken the time to read all the links benzband and i posted on your talk page, i hope you shall do so when you get the time. Ricose (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know about AfD for the article, I thought to remove it but decided to remove when it really gets deleted. But, that's about Stone Free, why are you removing the other bands from the list?? They are well supported by the sources. And removing references from an article is surely a blatant vandalism, please first take a look at those links by yourself, you seem to be too much confused or have other intentions. --Zayeem (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting repetitive. But here we go again:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band
- I believe I have repeated all of this to you multiple times. For a band or musician to be notable enough to mention on wikipedia, they need to meet certain notability guidelines. If a source alleges that a certain band, say, is 'the greatest band in the world', and yet there is not much other evidence available to support this, then that band, according to wikipedia standards, does not meet notability guidelines. For example, a google search for the band my 31st demerit, which you allege to be among the 'popular'/notable bands of Bangladesh, reveals just and and only one article; all other material about the band found online is self-published content, such is their 'popularity'. One single article simply does not qualify as enough 'support' to establish notability on wikipedia. And since you ask, my intentions are simply to ensure that articles here adhere to wikipedia guidelines. And also to ensure that advertisers/possible members of those bands themselves/friends of the band/ don't try to weasel up the importance of certain virtually non-existent subjects in articles by using just one or two "sources" and tons of peacock terms. So unless you can find multiple third-party sources to support your claims concerning these bands and their alleged popularity, rather than just edit-warring continuously, you may want to review your own intentions. Ricose (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Your kitten is comment!
Your kitten is now valid I want you to accurly buy your cat!!!
JEOFF
Kitten valid until 05/04/13
Call now to make an appoitment for Kitten
G Davidson 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.