Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52

Thx for the request to talk.

RE First 3 section being unsourced. They are not sourceable. By guidelines, then they all should be omitted. Yes?

RE There are Alternatives - I can find a source which covers the topic. Will that help?

Appreciate your input. The process is frustrating

mckeever (67.164.40.207 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

What page are you on about?? --Mdann52talk to me! 13:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you have chosen to reject my article because it references IMDB. I have come across a good number of actress profiles that have Imdb as sources to reference films they've acted in but for some reason you picked this one to reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamKiranga (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@SamKiranga: your article lacks the multiple reliable sources that it needs to establish notability. Without these, it will not be accepted. IMDb sources were not the reason why it was rejected; They are unreliable, so should be replaced. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete citations to 'Jezebel Complex' and the ABC Sound Quality Show which are valid sources? I have been watching how Wikipedia's volunteers have been editing this article, why are there three people in 2 days from Wiki doing this, surely this is a waste of resource. Another contributor on MC Opi's page said you are very focused on this. Just seems like some sort of agenda as the other contributor said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.153.251 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have deleted several cited reliable sources, this is vandalism and will be reported. As for prolific ARIA award winning singer, this is correct. At this stage I will be reporting all of this, I have read through all revisions in the last 24 hours and I am now convinced there is a serious issue with the Wiki volunteers on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.137.39 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed no reliable sources from the article. I removed a number of unsourced pharagraphs and unrealible sources. If you feel that reporting my actions is nessicerry, then ANI is thataway, but WP:BOOMERANG may be a useful page to read. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You deleted reliable sources, such as archive.org Jezebel Complex which actually has not only the writers names but an actual track. You deleted a valid source of a program schedule of a national government funded radio show. As for WP:BOOMERANG this only applies to unreliable sources for this incident, so you might want to take your own advice and read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.141.110 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I can put over 30 wikipedia articles of music artist subjects that state prolific in context of their work, on your page in answer to your good faith prolific comment regarding other subjects on MC Opi's history but I gather you understand this, so enlighten me further, this looks like it has been an intense onslaught from wiki volunteers for 48 hours, you must know this due to your comments.

hello

I have to admit.I was quite shocked to see that you just deleted/erased several years of hard work and investigation into this label.Stating that,I quote.."Wikipedia is not a catalogue of releases".Ok, we all have different opinions but as far as I have experienced the view is that Wikipedia is a place to seek knowledge about all kind of topics. That is the real meaning and purpose of Wikipedia. The only place you can find complete information about this -70ths label is here on Wikipedia and then information about their releases including links to scans of some of their most famous albums is very valuable.I have used hundreds of hours to find all the catalogue & matrix numbers in order to try to put together the most complete story of the label.I argue very strongly against what you have done and will revert your update. But I want to discuss this with you before I do this. I see no harm in having the catalogue, and it surely dont occupy much space on the site.I know for a fact that the article is being used as a reference to many collectors who collect and try to find information.Now you make it impossible regards

Rune Flyspes

Flyspes (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment.I made a search on Wikipedia for record labels and found hundreds with complete discography.so what is the difference between those and the TMOQ and TAKRL label ? here is an example with a discography simular to the one you deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Note_Records_discography

Rune Flyspes Flyspes (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Having a full discography on a separate article may be fine, if there are a large number of notable, blue-linked releases (such as the example you linked above). However, in this case, there is no reason to merge this into the main article. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again.

Pls advice were to find guidlines for what you are saying as I dont find any logic in this.Here is a link to another well know label with complete discography but few links to the the releases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mute_Records_discography Why should a label discography be on a seperate article as most collectors looking on Wikipedia will want to read information about TAKRL & TMOQ and then look at the output of the label below. Secondly,what gives you the authority to make this judgement and alter based on your own opinion.This is question not an argument.

I will of cource,if needed, create a seperate article with the discograpy and make a link from the main article.This discograpy is too valuable to be deleted an unobtainable.

I am under no circumstances interested in getting into any argumentation, I just want to be informed in how to do this the correct way.

regards

Rune Flyspes Flyspes (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus to do this - please see this thread. I would argue against a separate article myself, as clearly many of these releases are non-notable - when maybe over 50% are bluelinked, then it may be worth considering. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

hello

sry I am confused. I read the link. Who is talking to who ? Meaning that Wikipedia is updated by millions of users and under which authority shall some have the power to decide what is right or wrong =? You mention consensus. Please clafiry and point me in the right direction. The discussion also show a big lack of knowledge about the topic ..quote.."The music on them is going to be still available elsewhere (as they were re-bootlegged at the time, and also the music is from live performances- "..wrong...several of these releases are unique and can only be found on the original LPs..secondly at least half contain studio sessions..

another statement..quote.-"The lists were probably copied from Hot Wacks. "...wrong..the HW book is incomplete/wrong and I have used several years of research to be able to put the list together.Including contact with one of the founders of the label Ken Douglas who have verified some of the information.

..finally,this statement show how little the persons discussing know about the topic..quote.."Think I only had one Pig record, but I had a few TAKRL ones- didn't realise they were uncommon."..well that says it all..some of these originals are for sale for several thousand of dollars among collectors.

after checking again on Wikipedia do I realize that most record labels have a seperate article with the discography (cant see the logic) but I was clearly wrong.So would it be possible to ask for help to create an article and link to main TMOQ article or am I not allowed to ask for this and will have to do it myself ?

and finally,who is to decide that these rare releases are "non-notable" ? Thousand of collectors will prove that statement wrong. Just check the auction results on Popsike...I made a random search for TMOQ and found about 20 000 items sold for the value USD 100 and up to several thousand dollars..http://www.popsike.com/php/quicksearch.php?searchtext=tmoq&x=0&y=0

regards

Rune Flyspes Flyspes (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you please explain in more detail why the submission was declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maliwilson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Maliwilson (talk · contribs)
  • User:Maliwilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submission for Kevin Arthur Rolle was declined. I do not fully understand why. I compared the write-up to other Wikipedia articles. Would you please assist me in understanding this so I can make the necessary corrections? Thank you.

Malinda

Maliwilson (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maliwilson: you have not cited any reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles on living people should be sourced well.this help page will show you how to properly format them.

Can you point out the website from which (according to you) the first paragraph of COMSATS Institute of Information Technology was copied in the last version edited by Master07420? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.95.139 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said the first paragraph was copied specifically. A lot of the content of the changes was unsuitable in tone, and a lot was close paraphrasing from various sites, hence why it was removed. If you continue inserting copyvios into the article, then you will be blocked, and the article protected again. Additionally, please log in to edit. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks. I cannot waste my time again. You should have removed the article which was paraphrased. You, however, also deleted those paragraphs which were perfectly fine (the introductory para for example). You have wasted the hard work of a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.118.83 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for making an inappropriate help message. I hope I don't do this again. TheGGoose (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheGGoose: no problem. It wasn't too inappropriate, just it didn't seem like it needed help from people to do. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52,

I am referencing my sources but the article still keeps getting blocked. How can I stop this? Is it worth requesting an article to be written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaparkinson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, would you explain why you hatted a very large portion of the Allegations section of the 3rd Archive.is RFC with the note "nothing more to see here, just some incivility."? From what I could see, most of the content that was hatted was discussion on various allegations against Archive Today (including a bulleted list of the allegations), not incivility. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Issac: by the end of that section, it had decended into incivility. If you feel I have hatted in the wrong place, feel free to move it, however I feel my action is appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 how would I find someone that might be willing to put together an article on a new film? Emmaparkinson (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How new is new? WP:NFF is relevant for films not yet released, and other parts of the same page, plus WP:42, are relevant for films that might not be otherwise widely discussed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: very new, and there has been little coverage; The draft was actually a copyvio of the official website. @Emmaparkinson: WP:RA may be of use. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Per BRD, please discuss such large changes. I don't doubt that some of it may be an improvement, but too much is happening and you need to get a consensus for undoing a version created through the collaboration of many editors. Just explain what you intend to do on the talk page and I'm sure we can figure it out. There is no rush. Since you've done this before and been reverted, this is getting to the point of vandalism/edit warring, so please work with us. I AGF that your intentions aren't "vandalism" in the usual sense, but large deletions without consensus or discussion have the same effect. This isn't your personal blog or website. The article is covered by ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for a fringe subject, so tread lightly. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That edit was an edit made as a result of an email sent to OTRS via the WMF. There are issues here in the background, and interest in this from both OTRS and the WMF. Before reverting OTRS actions, you should seek advice from the agent who is dealing with the ticket; Your actions with reverting my actions have already been causing issues. If you think the issue here is me, feel free to bring this up with ArbCom; However, editing against stuff based on non-public data is rarely appreciated by them.

In the meantime, I would suggest you actually look through what I have removed. This is an article on the organisation, so inncluding excessive background information is not really appropriate. Additionally, basing stuff on dead links to the organisations own website is not really a good idea; There may be reasons why they have retracted it. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I'm fully prepared to cooperate with any concerns. In the meantime, you are not above our policies here, and that includes not having some special right allowing you to edit war against consensus. You're supposed to use the article's talk page, not respond with a bold deletion. I'll get back to you later as I have to leave right now. You're welcome to email me any concerns. I can keep a confidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(Comment moved to the proper place, which is Talk:Generation Rescue#Recent large deletions based on concerns at OTRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

I merged two "I didn't hear that" follow ups to this one, if you want to assign it to me I'll give it a go. Just didn't want to take it over arbitrarily :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52, please don't collapse sections and discussion on arbitration pages. Whilst in good faith doing so generally just causes more trouble than it's worth. That's why we earn the big buck. If you've got a problem let us know and we can do something about it (as I was). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, would you please clarify your recent edit at Andrew Marin? I understand there is an OTRS ticket afoot, but I don't know how to log in or look at it, so I don't know why you removed this material. Would you explain how to view the ticket, and why these edits were performed? Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:OTRS. Only OTRS agents with access to corresponding queue can see the actual ticket (email). I don't have access to that ticket, either. — revi^{^} 03:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Just Tidying Up: The story seems to have been fabricated, and an apology later printed by the magazine. Due to this, it was requested it was removed from the article, which I have done. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the apology that you say was printed by The Advocate? I just searched theadvocate.com for "Andrew Marin" and did not find any apology. I found the original article from 2006, and a reprint from 2010 (along with an unrelated 2014 mention of a photo, picturing Marin, which went viral).

In a related web search, I found the following two links:

2010: Michelangelo Signorile asserts that his article was not retracted by the Advocate.

2010: Andrew Marin apologizes for publicly saying that the article was retracted when it wasn’t.

If you read closely, you'll see that Signorile, in his 2010 comment, asserted that his article could not be found on The Advocate's website because, at that time (so he said), nothing from that time period was available there. However, now, in 2014, both the 2006 and the 2010 printings are hosted on the site, which could indicate that the Advocate's archive is now online. Searching this archive, I found nothing to suggest that The Advocate retracted (or apologized for) this article.

Would you comment further on this? Or can you tell me how to see this OTRS ticket, if my comments are duplicating a prior discussion? Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Just Tidying Up: Only OTRS agents can see the ticket, which I do not think you are. As of the edit, due to this evidence, I have self-reverted; Thanks for bringing this extra evidence to my attention. OTRS usually works on trust with situations like this; I prefer to AGF until evidence emerges to suggest otherwise. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AGF applies to other editors, not to outside sources. Outside sources are still bound by our rules (but they don't follow them), which is to provide a RS for their information. Then OTRS volunteers should present the concern and the RS on the article's talk page and let other editors deal with it. We should be distrustful of outside sources and do as we always do here, which is to let the Reliable and Verifiable sources determine the matter. OR from an outside source is not a RS which is verifiable by ALL Wikipedia editors, ergo we cannot use it to guide our editing. Outside sources have agendas, and we must recognize that. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone contacts me, says their article is wrong, and provides a satisfactory explanation about why, why should I not assume good faith that that version of events are correct? I had a look to see i could find anything to the contrary, but I could find nothing, so I made the edit. Someone asked for clarification and sources to the contrary. I reviewed the case, found the burden of proof was with the original, and reverted myself. Looks like the system working to me. --Mdann52talk to me! 05:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Then just deal with it like any COI edit, because if there is anyone who has a COI, it is anyone making an OTRS request, and you risk becoming a meatpuppet for them. You don't want to get caught in that position. That's why you should just take it to the talk page and let other editors who know more about the subject deal with it. It is only in totally, unquestionably, clearcut BLP cases that a deletion cannot be immediately reverted, and that was not the case here. Differences of opinion and choice of sources are another matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, I have begun a discussion at WP:BLPN about Suzannah Lipscomb. I am letting you know out of courtesy and to say it is not intended as a criticism of your actions, but as a general uncertainty and discomfort about some uses of OTRS actions. Please do not take it personally. 86.133.242.71 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This was done under WP:DOB, and there is consensus for this on the talk page. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve by doing this. --Mdann52talk to me! 05:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a line and say thank you for being an active contributing editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why you have removed my request for AWB? Owais khursheed (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Owais khursheed: as it was malformed. try again, following the instructions given throughout the page. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks-- Owais khursheed (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MDann52,

I am the web coordinator at Austen Riggs. I emailed you about the vandalism we received. We have changed the page to what we would like it to say and you had reverted it back to simplify the language. We are OK with the previous revision before you made the change today. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.144.243 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted your edit as it failed to comply with some of our policies, namely WP:NPOV and WP:WEASELS. Please note that, per WP:OWN, you can not control the content of the page, but I will be willing to look into any changes you want made. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Maliwilson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kevin Arthur Rolle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maliwilson (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52 would you please check Kevin Arthur Rolle again? I have made the necessary changes.

@Maliwilson: looks like an improvement. As I have previously reviewed it, I will let someone else review it, but I will make a few cleanup edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I've received an message; An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A Madness Shared by Two. Since you had some involvement with the A Madness Shared by Two redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so...

How can I help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfkay (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion. If you wish to comment on the nomination, please do at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_9#A_Madness_Shared_by_Two. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put categories which affect other user's messages, especially when they haven't done it themselves. Her being blocked is not an excuse. Tutelary (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing the article on James McGibney when the version that is there is as a result of discussions between THREE editors. The information is fully sourced to the America Al Jazeera news organization's website which has an article about this guy. Just because it is unflattering does not make it any less true. Why do you make unilateral revisions without talking to any one first? Can you please help me understand what it is that you are seeing that we might be missing? The added materials come straight out of the Al Jazeera article, do they not? And isn't Al Jazeera America a reliable source? The reporter who wrote the piece seems reliable enough, too. What are your thoughts, please? Unholyrollerz (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Unholyrollerz: I'm not too convinced by the source myself, but will look into it a bit more; The author only appears to have published one article, but I will see what else I can dig up on them. It might be worth you raising this over at WP:BLPN to get a wider opinion on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"The author only appears to have published one article." Dude, the guy has his own Wikipedia page and has published HUNDREDS of articles, as well as several books. He might not be known or famous in your part of the world, but here in the US he is very widely known. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kushner I ask that you go back and reintroduce the material I had placed. It comes straight from the article. Unholyrollerz (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

When I posted that, I was using the information given to me on the site, which stated one article. Personally, I have no opinion on this, but as another editor is challenging thus, I suggest you also discuss it with them or gain consensus first; Preferably both. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)