User talk:edgarde/2011-2012

User Johno334

I'm not sure what to do here, but if you take a lot at his contributions he was created yesterday and started to immediately remove sexual content from multiple pages; sometimes removing sourced content stating ("making more concise"). I don't think this is a new user. Anyways thank for warning him, I wasn't sure if I left a message what it should say.AerobicFox (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User wmcg

I had all my postings from yesterday removed as spam. One was a personal narrative of my arrest for domestic abuse. I don't see how this is considered spam. It was factual and relevant to the topic. The other was an analytical reaction to the White Privilege conference held recently. I think its point of view helps to balance other materials in the article. What rules are being violated? Why was I threatened with expulsion. The links add to one's understanding of the subject. What does the yellow sign mean? Is an appeal possible? wmcg Wmcg (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're linking what appears to be your own writing; this is discouraged under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since we tend to overestimate the importance of our own writing. These pages are basically your opinions—you absolutely have a right to publish your opinions, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting them.

• With your domestic violence article, there is no indication either that this information can reliably be considered informative about other cases, or that this case is in itself particularly important relative to most other cases. However, it does sound like a truly terrible situation. I hope things get better for you.
• Similarly, there is no indication that the White Privilege conference page is in particular more worth the Wikipedia reader's time than any other. Reportage of this type is original research, and cannot be used on Wikipedia unless it is from a reliable source, either an authority known to be reliable, or published by an organization with reliable editorial oversight. Furthermore, if this were published by a reliable organization, the proceedings of this particular conference are probably too narrow a subject for an article about the general topic of white privilege—it would be better suited to an article about that particular conference. You do include some relevant general editorial about the subject aside from the conference, but again this falls in the category of one person's opinion. As for "balancing other points of view in the article" Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (under Giving "equal validity") states that not "every minority view" need be represented in the absence of commonly accepted mainstream scholarship—the existence and extent of such a point of view can be added to an article by citing a reliable secondary source, but arguments from Wikipedia editors do not by themselves fulfill this requirement, nor should such arguments be given undue weight, as if they had standing comparable to that of mainstream scholarship.

Every day, hundreds of people try to use Wikipedia to promote their own web sites. It's a serious problem. Were Wikipedia to accept external links of this type, many (if not most) articles would it would quickly become a collection of indiscriminate links, more than any reader could evaluate for usefulness, and many of them useless to anyone.

As for your other questions:

• The important policies being violated would probably be be Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (especially Due and undue weight), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (via Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). However, in your case I would also very strongly recommend giving Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:External links (particularly Links normally to be avoided) a read.
• The sign just means Pay attention, there's a problem, could be serious.

• Blocks are only used to minimize damage to Wikipedia, i.e. for persistent troublesome edits—as you are trying to understand the problem, chances are you are not at risk of being blocked. Blocks are not issued punitively, and it is not my intention to have you expelled.
• If you feel I removed these links erroneously, or am just being unreasonable, you could ask Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard—were these links approved there, it would certainly put the burden on me to demonstrate why they should be removed. (However, I do have my reasons, as listed above.)

Sorry to take so long to reply on this. Please let me know if you have other questions—I will try to be helpful if I can.

By the way, I'm sorry about the trouble you've been having, as reported in the domestic violence article. Stay free, man. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand this better. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

67.220.4.17 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FGwiki

Template:FGwiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Griffin family

Hi, I was wondering if you could weigh in regarding the family tree issue. The other user keeps citing unrelated policies and refuses to discuss the issue. Since you noticed that the family tree is the only part of the article that bears actual importance to the issue, your response will be highly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marcus Bachmann

Hello. I saw your thoughtful comment on AfD and I was wondering if you would also add a comment about how to deal with issues under discussion over at Talk:Marcus Bachmann#BLP concerns. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

4 stars rating in {{Review-Christgau}}

hello,

I wonder why this template doesn't include the four-star rating, for example [1]. --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 12:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on Template talk:Review-Christgau. Blender reviews use a different rating system. The {{Review-Christgau}} supports the ratings system used in Xgau's Consumer Guide and his Expert Witness columns. Thanks for bringing this up—I've made this more specific in the documentation for that template. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 12:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nathanson and Young for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathanson and Young 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/Nathanson_and_Young 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 good 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 template from the top of the article--Cailil ^talk 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1

A GAN on Margaret Sanger is on hold to allow time for editors to improve prose, inline citations and presentation and formatting before the review looks at accuracy, POV and coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This user helped promote Margaret Sanger to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Review-Christgau

Template:Review-Christgau has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nikthestoned 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in Popular Culture

Not sure whether you're monitoring the page at all...or want to get involved...but an editor seems to be trying to drag an old skeleton out of the closet. Doniago (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I had unwatched that article because it was a list of IPC spottings with no content worth keeping or merging back into the main article. On your suggestion, I am re-watching this article in case things improve, but as someone who thinks lists of lists of IPC spottings have no place in Wikipedia, I have no standing in the current discussion, and do not think the article can be improved without a substantial re-write, which I don't see happening.

Thanks for the notice. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the link at least. Unfortunately I doubt the editors supporting the inclusion of list items based purely on primary sources would be substantially persuaded to change their opinions based on an essay, given the limited impact that links to policies have had thus far. I'm dealing with a flu bug right now, so apologies if my wording's a bit off here. Doniago (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment

Hello,

Thank you for the comment on my talk page the other day about my use of the "minor edit". I appreciate your feedback and your pointer to the guideline on the matter which I hadn't previously been aware off. Unfortunately, someone has since removed my addition. Se la vie, but I will remember your comment for next time.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to write,

Peter

Pmasters (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of William Adams (judge) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Adams (judge) 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/William Adams (judge) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: your latest comment on the Adams deletion page [2]: don't worry about it. I think a lengthy debate was inevitable, and it was better for you, a sensible, established editor, to have created a basically factual, referenced article than any other potential alternative. While you may retrospectively feel you were trying to make a point, that's not how I took it when I saw the article; I felt deletion wasn't a cut-and-dried decision. The debate's good and valuable, and has exposed a few issues that haven't been adequately addressed. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

William Adams (judge)

I would question the need for a Wikipedia article for Adams, as there appears to be no sources available in regards to his career. Broden (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Edgarde/Cindy Jacobs

Yes. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edgarde. You have new messages at Sonicyouth86's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau

As you may know, this page is still transcluded on several talk page archives, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 20 for example. Because you requested its deletion, the places where your userpage was transcluded are confused now. Would you please permit the page to be restored long-term for the sake of these archives? I restored it in order to subst it on Talk:Indestructible (Disturbed album)/Archive 1 (where it's only used once), but some of the pages use it so many times that substing would be difficult. Please note that I redeleted it as soon as it was substed to the Indestructible archive. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why these transclusions need to be supported, but if you think they are important to preserve, please do what you need. I would suggest the restored template be fully protected to prevent vandalism. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I just realised what happened — after it was userfied, someone went through talk page archives and changed links from {{Review-Christgau}} to {{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau}}. I thought that we'd have lots of links to your userspace page in article histories. Now that I understand that it wouldn't be a substantial problem, I've substed all of the templates (it's now linked by three pages and transcluded by none) and will delete it immediately afterward. I'm sorry for the confusion — I wouldn't have asked this if I'd realised that the userspace page name wasn't commonly used in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Beatles - I Threw It All Away (excerpt).q0.ogg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beatles - I Threw It All Away (excerpt).q0.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pink floyd the division bell front-308.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pink floyd the division bell front-308.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edgard! Thanks for giving back your account so another editor can use it. I will let Credo know so they can transfer it to someone else. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Pink Floyd Relics 1996-300.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pink Floyd Relics 1996-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:RelicsUSA-300.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RelicsUSA-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Relics05-b-300.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Relics05-b-300.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:PinkFloyd-album-piperatthegatesofdawn 300.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:PinkFloyd-album-piperatthegatesofdawn 300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)