User talk:Dissolve/Archive 2

Katherine Reutter

Thank you for your edits on Katherine Reutter. Nice to see that article become very good in the past couple of weeks.

[The] Family Tree

Hi, thanks for your improvements to my addition at Family tree (disambiguation), citing MoS:DP. I don't understand one of the 4 changes you made: to remove "The" from the title of the book - I couldn't find a recommendation to do so in the MoS. You can see for example at [1] that the title does include the word - was its removal a mistake, or have I missed a guideline that says it should be elided? Hv (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I edited the disambiguation page, the article listed the title as just Family Tree.[2] The relevant general guideline is more WP:D, which describes that disambiguation pages should list only what is actually described in articles. As you point out, the title actually is The Family Tree so it should appear that way on the dab page. dissolve ^talk 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all is clear. Hv (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

lechtrechonodes are not submitting but I am okay. Linguistixuck (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lissy Trullie

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lissy Trullie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This artist does not appear to qualify as notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Matt (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion 52 minutes after an article stub was created? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, indeed. dissolve ^talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz standards

Hi! I've reorganized List of jazz standards (basically, split it in four) and changed the table format into a bullet format with some info on each tune. Since you participated in the merger discussion earlier, I thought you might want to check out the articles and give some feedback on the split (and possibly how to improve the articles). I've explained my changes in detail here. The text format I'm proposing is demonstrated at List of jazz standards (before 1930). I'd like to get some feedback on the proposed format before changing the other articles as well. You can compare the current version with the old version, which was in table format. Thanks for your time! Jafeluv (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bria valente external links.

There are similar external links on the "Prince musician" page. In fact the exact same Tavis Smiley interview is included. My question is, why is it allowed there and not on Ms Valentes page? Falsewords333 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince article isn't on my watchlist so I don't know about the status of those links, I'd imagine that since it gets 8K-40K hits a day, it's more susceptible to spam. Regarding the Bria Valente article the interview is already linked as an inline reference; see Wikipedia:External links#References and citation: references for an article are not considered "external links" and shouldn't be included there. Regarding the links you added, see WP:ELNO, search results pages and links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash) to view the relevant content are to be avoided. The external link guideline is an extension of the policy what Wikipedia is not, i.e. it's an encyclopedia, not a collection of external links or media files. dissolve ^talk 19:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for clarifying. I also am curious as to how there is so much personal life and rumors on Princes page as far as past girlfriends etc. Yet when i stated that Prince and Bria are currently dating, they were seen courtside at the lakers game on Christmas day 2008 and in Paris, France in 2009. I also included her obvious vocal contribution to the "Song of the Heart" with Prince for the Happy Feet movie sountrack and the song won a Golden Globe in 2008. Yet you would not allow that? Is there something im missing here? These are facts that should be included. Falsewords333 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine there are alot more published sources for Prince which could be used to cite stuff about his personal life, while there is very little that's been published about Bria Valente. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish gossip. I couldn't find a source to verify either that they're "dating" or that she has a credit on Happy Feet, so removed them. Perhaps there are sources you can cite for these? Feel free to add anything to the article that you can cite a source for. See WP:BLP#Sources for what constitutes a reliable source for biographies of living persons. dissolve ^talk 09:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: afd for Mikael Johnston

Hello Dissolve

I noticed you are a fairly active contributor to music articles on Wikipedia and also defended the afd discussion for Mikael Johnston. I was hoping to get your support in trying to either reverse the decision to delete his article or to get permission to rewrite his page in a more objective manner. I'm actually more interested in the latter. Below is a letter I wrote the guy who made the decision regarding the afd so you know what my arguments are. I want to start with him before taking any other action. Also you can see the new page I started for Mikael Johnston here User:Lishlet/Sandbox Thank you

Lishlet (talk)

Hello Backslash Forwardslash I wrote a direct email to you and did not receive a response, so I'm going to try posting to your page. It was suggested by User talk:Accounting4Taste that I first contact you. I was hoping we could discuss an article that was deleted recently that I contributed to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston. I realize I may not be as up on Wikipedia guidelines as some of the admins or more experienced users but when I follow the argument Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston, it doesn't seem like deletion was necessary. I apologize in advance if I seem ignorant to the protocol of Wikipedia but please allow me to explain.

Many contributors, (one in particular who is a major contributor to Wikipedia music articles User:Dissolve) advised to keep, Another User:Abc518 advised to Merge and cited at least some notability. He then went on to say, "There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added... I don't think this page should be deleted all together." The discussion then continued where Editing User:Mperiera explained in detail source credibility for the article's references. The credibility of those references was then re-affirmed by User:Dissolve an experienced veteran Wikipedia music article contributor, when he said, "Keep Subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources (SF Weekly[23], Allmusic[24], East Bay Express[25], Keyboard Magazine[26]), so meets WP:N." I understand that this is not a majority vote but there was a majority of contributors to this talk that cited arguments that seemed to speak to the subjects notability and that the references meet the guidelines to establish WP:Notability.

The consensus of the group discussion from what I read seemed to establish with valid arguments that Mikael Johnston has notability in his field electronic dance music, that his article should not be deleted, however, there was a concern that the page was autobiographical because the subject had started the article himself.

I understand the concern about the original article possibly being autobiographical, and this is the reason I was compelled to start a new article hoping to write something the was not connected with the subject - unbiased, well referenced and fact based. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than using some of the same reference material (as well as some new ones). Please allow me to finish and post the new article I started on Mikael Johnston. I welcome any help or suggestions to help ensure my article meets Wikipedia guidelines. My article is newly started and more of a stub than an article so far. I may ask for help from some more experienced users like User:Dissolve, in finishing this article. You can see what I've written in so far at User:Lishlet/Sandbox.

Thank you again for your time. Please let me know your thoughts.

Lishlet (talk)

WTF?

{{unblock-auto|1=67.43.106.126|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Johnmichaelfitzpatrick". The reason given for Johnmichaelfitzpatrick's block is: "ignoring image upload warnings".|3=Feydey|4=1571936}}

WTF indeed! Checkuser doesn't show any connection between that block and this IP. I've unblocked the autoblock, let's see if that works. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1571936 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

yeah after scratching my head for a bit, I could only guess I got caught by a bug in the software: "Software updates are being applied to Wikimedia sites; we're shaking out a few remaining issues". dissolve ^talk 07:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Neenyo

Wiki article: Neenyo How can I fix the issues I'm having with creating this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Pope

what is your problem???? the link is relevant and i cited proof of that so stop removing it!! Pezzy (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link violates Wikipedia external link policies as a fansite. If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. dissolve ^talk 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is a fansite approved by Carly and is completely relevant to the page. im not spamming anything. the website provides more information on this actress which is what the external links are for. The website has permission to use many of its images & articles so there is no copyright infringement. let it be and QUIT THREATENING ME WITH BLOCKING!. Pezzy (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an official site: "This website is in no way connected to Carly Pope." The rules for websites that violate copyright are clear: WP:ELNEVER. You may also want to read about sock puppetry. dissolve ^talk 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crunkcore

haha i cant believe you put a hyperlink for "being a dick". i understand how wikipedia works, so i usually discuss my opinions before i do anything. this way, maybe people could work together to find refernces about said opinion (that are, of course, neutral). in fact, the stub for crunkcore makes the genre seem like evil in music form. i said the one guy was dick because i thought he was being a pompous jerk with the whole no one cares about your opinion thing. if you think about it, its opinion if there should even be a page about topic. but im digressing. i just want to say is im trying to help, and i know the rules of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.111.17 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Katherine Reutter

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Reutter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Luke

Dear Dissolve,

Can you please stop editing Dr. Luke's Wiki page? I doubt you are dong this intentionally but some of the information you are making easily public can be used in bad ways like getting into accounts / identity theft, etc. This IS happening. We will be looking onto legal ways to keep this information off his page and would appreciate your help.

Thanks for your understanding!

Megan for Dr. Luke.

I will certainly help to make sure that the article complies with all relevant Wikipedia policies, such as the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I will disengage from editing the article until other editors get a chance to look at the issues you have raised. If you are concerned about the date of birth and other biographical facts, sorry but they have been published by Slate magazine and are available to anyone on the World Wide Web. I can't help you with any identity theft problems, as I am not LEA. dissolve ^talk 06:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that slate citation the only one? It seems a bit weak to me, an unverified claim that his dad sent it to me? Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is the only source that I've seen. Slate is published by the Washington Post Company with considerably editorial oversight. Jody Rosen has been Slate's music critic since 2004. While the style of the article is a bit unorthodox, I don't see any red flags about this journalist's research. dissolve ^talk 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the subject of the article objects and this is the only reliable source I can find with google, the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information is to remove the DOB from the Wikipedia article when privacy concerns are raised. I will just add the year. dissolve ^talk 22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolve, I can explain everything but being that there is ongoing activity I would prefer to do it in a less public place. Is there an email were I can contact you? We will start aggressively monitoring Wikipedia and other websites in January and using all legal means to keep information that can be used maliciously off these sites. In the meantime please excuse us if we revert to previous versions that do not contain information that can be used for identity theft and other illegal activity.

Thanks for you help!

Megan for Dr. Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.239.243 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan, you might try contacting Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem to get some input from site administrators. You can email me here: Special:EmailUser/Dissolve (although you'll need to create an account on here to do so). dissolve ^talk 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will pick this up in January.

Megan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.239.243 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dissolve. I read your message at WP:COIN. I am willing to assist with the article, if needed. Would it be appropriate to hold further discussions about the article on the article talk page? Since none of the information you added (with the possible exception of the date of birth) is libelous/defamatory, perhaps reaching consensus through email is not necessary. Also, to Megan: per WP:NLT you may be blocked for issuing legal threats. Please avoid doing that, as you're creating a battleground environment. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, and we'll do all we can to help (to a reasonable extent, and within policy) but your "aggressive monitoring" will only make the situation worse. Additionally, I see you've been reverted multiple times on the article. Your removal of content is not appropriate. Please discuss further changes on the article talk page per WP:BRD. 5:40 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Can you watchlist the article? I'll check back on it periodically. dissolve ^talk 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Matt White (musician) portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Matt White (musician) portrait.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]