User talk:Jazzeur/Old stuff 1

AWB

You applied for AWB but you only have 216 mainspace edits. You have to have 500 mainspace edits to be approved without a good reason. Just thought you should know. IrishLass (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. --Jazzeur (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All in the Family

Please don't blank pages and make unconstructive page moves as you did to All in the Family. It's a legitimate disambig page and your edits could be misconstrued as vandalism. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically, your best bet is to take the page (i.e., All in the Family (US series)) to WP:RM, explain your case and let an admin do the heavy lifting for you. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did it for you. This should be fixed within half an hour (requested moves can be slow depending on admin activity). --Closedmouth (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you call it Vandalism?

I have yet to see the Imaginationland story arc of South Park, but in the fictional species page, I think that user was mentioning something about the Woodland Critters' appearance in those three episodes. It may have been poorly worded, but it certainly wasn't vandalism. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. At least you were doing what you thought was right; you would be amazed by how many people have reverted edits which happened to be constructive, but not in good faith. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jazzeur! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rob Reiner

According to the Be Bold Wikipedia Guideline, asking for verification is not really necessary for minor edits such as this. We can take it to the discussion board should the issue escalate, but for now allow me to elaborate...

The term "progressive" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Everybody likes progress (I hope!), but the definition is anything but consistent from person to person. I am aware of the common-sense association between progressive and liberal politics, but that doesn't make it neutral. By juxtaposing progressive and liberal, the common-sense association is further perpetuated - not very neutral to those who disagree with how a liberal defines progress. That is what I meant by playing favourites.

I guess all I am saying is to be careful how that word is used, as the connotation of superiority is not very subtle at all. See Progressivism: Note #9 for a quick discussion pertaining to this. Goldsac (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See my responses here. Jazzeur (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:V guidelines

Verifiability means you have to get EXTERNAL sources. You cannot use unreferenced articles or episode pages as "proof" for another article. Until you have an external source, do not add the History Bites reference to the All in the Family article without external references. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"I could be the source" = NO. No editor gets to be a source. Reference or don't add. That's the guidelines otherwise you're just vandalizing the article. KellyAna (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Wilhelmina Will for the nice attention and the same to you . Jazzeur (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Downbeat

no problem. you did create a worthy category.

as you probably guessed, i recently went through the exact same process with virtually the same cast of characters; so i understand how frustrating it is to feel ganged up on. they sure seem to have a monopoly on which categories remain - based on their own subjective definitions. and as you noted, because they delete so quickly, most other editors won't even know the discussion is taking place or be able to weigh in. the only thing i can suggest is that you leave a message on the talk pages of all those articles included in the category with a link to the discussion. that might get you some more feedback about whether it is 'defining attribute'. best of luck. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• J. Van Meter, your latest contribution faithfully and precisely depicts how I perceived and experienced this discussion. You really found the words to paint the situation from my perspective. I felt like an heretic in front of a mob of inquisitors. Jazzeur (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• yup, they don't give up, and they're comically blind to how they come across. but you know, right now it seems to be a tie vote about your category. you should see if you can muster a few more opinions before they decide the case is closed. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that template didn't really convey what I wanted to show. Anyway, please refrain from dumping a giant box on top of an article page in order to get more people to a discussion. Contacting individual involved editors is okay. Putting notification boxes in article space will probably be viewed as canvassing. Thanks. SMC (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence [[:the Downbeat CFD discussion]]. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. The articles you have canvassed are Cannonball Adderley, Frank Sinatra, Art Tatum, Clark Terry, Sarah Vaughan, and Ben Webster. Please stop. SMC (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking to find users who are interested in keeping the award article, then examine the histories of the article. Look for people who have contributed significantly to the article, then leave a message on their talk page. I suppose there's no harm in having a look at *significant* contributers to some of the other articles as well ie. the ones you put the box on. Look under their histories, find interested editors, and drop them a line. SMC (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. Instead of giving me a fish, you have taught me how to fish. You are a great coach. Jazzeur (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• No worries :) All the best. SMC (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that I had taken the precaution to watch all those pages, to be able to go back and remove the box once the dispute had been closed. So there was some sanity in my desparate move. Good night. Jazzeur (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ah good. Well, at least you know the policy now :P. Night. SMC (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazzeur, I hope you read through categories, lists, and series boxes to get a sense of how the different organizational schemes work on Wikipedia. Discussions of how best to organize information in Wikipedia is not equivalent to saying a topic is not important in a particular field. I realize that, as J. Van Meter has said, it can feel like that -- when I was a new contributor, I, too, had a category that I thought perfectly reasonable be posted on CFD, and summarily deleted. I felt embarrassed & angry at the CFDers, but I did not take it as a personal attack, nor did I think they were a secret, insular cabal. Instead, I ended up watching CFD, reading the category guidelines very closely, and eventually participating. I now understand much better the entire organizational scheme at wikipedia, and how to maximize access to information, while minimizing editor maintenance headaches. That's what CFD is about, and I hope that over time, you, too, will get more familiar with the process.

Wikipedia has a lot of moving parts, and we're all still working out the best ways for the parts to work together. The organizational schemes -- categories, lists, series infoboxes, and so on -- are very important to ensuring that readers can find information. But it is not correct to just see them as simply three different ways, each of which "adds" a new way of accessing the information. Each method also has significant downsides, as well. Categories are very difficult to police inclusion and exclusion from because, as you have pointed out, you can't really easily "watchlist" the contents of a category. As an index to the subject, they are very easily corrupted. This means that we are quite careful and parsimonious about using them, preferring "lists" in many, many cases. If this doesn't make sense to you, I really encourage you to watch CFD for a while, and actually go out and look at some categories that come up in the discussion to see how they play out. Do it for a few months and get a sense of it. You may find your opinion about categories changing, or you may find better ways of explaining your views to other editors, or you may find new approaches that could help the system.

Whatever the CFD outcome, it need not be a negative experience, and I hope you won't take it that way. J. Van Meter took things quite personally, and was -- in my view -- quite uncivil to fellow editors. That's not the best way to negotiate disagreements, and I think made the experience more confrontational and unpleasant for all concerned. That's really not how it has to be; it wasn't for me, with a very similar experience to JVM's.

• Lquilter, your message is full of empathy and very comforting for me. Having taken the time and invested the efforts to explain all those bylaws, conventions and structure is very commendable. Quite a contrast with the phrase that started the discussion concerning the deletion of the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees category and I cite:

«Speedy delete - reconstitution of category deleted per this CFD. CFD was unanimous in favor of deletion. If not eligible for speedy because of the one-word name difference, then delete as overcategorization by non-notable award, per the unanimous argument offered at that CFD.»

With the terms used and its tone this message offended me and I firmly believe that the vast majority of individuals would have been offended as well. The message did not invite discussion, it promoted confrontation. The term Speedy created anxiety and panic. Second, it immediately assumed bad faith on my part, for the only reason I became aware of the discussion was because I tried to use this deleted category on the Bill Evans page. The whole discussion concerning the deletion of the previous category was handled, not by regular users like me, but by a group of aficionados specialized in managing (let's be polite) categories. I therefore found the term unanimously very presumptuous. I was therefore convinced that my attempt to create a new category with a title that was proposed as an alternative, when the first category was deleted, would be acceptable.

As a Wikipedia user and a Jazz music lover, I honestly consider that my use of the category, in this instance, is very useful to Jazz researchers as well as fans because after reading a single article concerning an artist, who is an inductee, you can be taken to the category page and see all the other artists that were so honored. Then you begin exploring some or all of those artists' pages without having to know about or visit the list at the Down Beat article. Making my search easy; that's the purpose of a great encyclopedia.

Finally, my mind is still debating your point that this category defines, or not, an artist lifetime achievements.

Regards, Jazzeur (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, you should read through the arguments on the Sardi's caricature subjects CFD that JVM posted. However, the straight-up award-winner category that you created is actually, in my view, not nearly as problematic as the Sardi's caricature subjects category that JVM posted. Awards and honorary memberships are much more likely to be defining than the category that JVM posted, although still, in most cases, overcategorization. The "Sardi's caricature subjects" isn't an award at all, nor even a "hall of fame" -- it's not something given to or applied to the "winners", unlike DownBeat. Instead, it was basically a category of people who had been caricatured and whose caricatures hung in a NY restaurant. A restaurant that is undeniably an institution, but the model category is very bad. That precedent was basically "Subjects of oil paintings that are in the Louvre" and "People represented in Disney cartoons" and so on. There is no sense in which that is defining of the subjects. Award recipients, by contrast, may be defined by having won an award, but it's quite rare -- Nobel, probably. In most instances, awards recognize achievements, but do not themselves define them.

Best, Lquilter (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. You're absolutely right that the shorthand & procedures at wikipedia can seem unfriendly, daunting, and frustrating. I think it's worth it to raise this issue on the CFD pages. I've already got my eye on one notify template to make it friendlier, and in the meantime have been usually contacting people directly to have a more person-to-person discussion.
2. The "defining" aspect of awards is, I think, very much a nuanced issue. Do please feel free to drop in on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization to discuss the issue more.
3. One of the other things that was really helpful to me in figuring out categories versus lists more, was to work on list articles, and really get the hang of putting lists into articles. I was soon very happy with the flexibility that offered. The category feature -- oh, it's really a little frustrating in a lot of ways. It looks like a keyword or a tag, and a lot of people familiar with flickr and similar systems use it that way, but it doesn't have any of that functionality (weighting it based on prevalence of tagging). The category pages that are generated, therefore, just list everything alphabetically, with no weighting. So, for instance, with award-winner categories, sometimes there are multiple awards, or there are multiple levels of "winning" -- but categories don't permit any of that. And then I realized that you can't even tell from a category page if everyone who belongs is there, or if anyone who doesn't belong is not there. The policing problem can be really burdensome on articles or categories that are frequently vandalized.
4. Anyway, I'd be happy to talk with you further about this -- not to try to persuade you, necessarily, but just to bat around ideas, and share my experiences of the last two years on categories. I think it's very important that we recognize good faith disagreements & work to find consensus, and explain our positions to each other. So feel free to drop me a line any time on this or other matters.

Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lquilter, your approach with people is absolutely fantastic. Also, you obviously gave a lot of thoughts to this subject. Points 3 and 4 are particularly promising for the future and I welcome your proposal to discuss ideas. One last thought: what I am really looking for as a Jazz music fan and researcher is a mechanism which is less vulnerable than the category but that would allow me to go from an artist to a list (Jazz Hall of Fame inductee, in this instance) and from the list to the artists. The latter part of the proposition is obvious with a list. The first part however requires a phrase or specific text, with a link to the list, to be added to each artist's page and this is this part I would like to avoid or find a standard obvious way of offering this feature to the users. Regards, Jazzeur (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are at least 3 ways of doing it. (1) Obviously, we can add information to the artist about winning the award, and link the award name; it's common to have a little section for "awards and recognition" with text or bulleted info. (2) If nowhere else, you can put in a "See also"; that's my least favorite option. (3) One approach that has worked well has been to create an infobox, or add it to preexisting infoboxes. This is the option I'm least familiar with. Is there a separate distinct infobox for musicians? If so, does it have an "awards" section? That would make it pretty prominent. If that does not work, for whatever reason, then another option is to make a little box for the award-winners, like you see on the Nobel laureates. See James D. Watson at the bottom for example. That links to all the Nobel Laureates in a field, and it stands out a lot more than the various category links at the bottom. For my personal tastes, I think it's a little big; I like having something that just has a blue bar with the title & link to the list/article, and the preceding & next years. But there are lots of ways to do it. I'd be happy to work with you on developing an appropriate infobox, if you decide that's the way to go. We should ping other people who work on jazz issues and see if they think it's a good idea -- try to build consensus in advance. --Lquilter (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestions. After seeing the James D. Watson's page, I believe that an infobox would be the ideal solution for what I am looking for. I would appreciate any guidance you would be willing to offer. Then, I could start developing the product in my sandbox and reviewing it with you along the way. Jazzeur (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Down Beat.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Down Beat.gif. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Down Beat infobox

Hi Lquilter. After seeing the infobox in the James D. Watson article, I am attempting to build something that I believe would be useful for Jazz fans and researchers, concerning the Down Beat Hall of Fame. This box would be placed at the bottom of every inductee's article. I would like very much having your views on this before publishing. Please have a look here and let me know what your views are. Thank you, Jazzeur (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For record purposes only: Reply from Rick Block (talk) to my questions about the Down Beat magazine and its Jazz Hall of Fame

I believe I laboriously found all the summary articles at downbeat.com, like this one (if you change the sid in the URL you'll get to another summary article - the polls seems to have consecutive sids by year). Google finds some (no clue why not more) of them with a search like this [1]. It would probably be easier to find a library with all the back issues of the magazine (!). History of the mag? No clue, although I've been aware of it (never subscribed) since the 1970s. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreated template

If you wish to dispute a deletion, the place to go is deletion review. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will not do so because your actions were savage, abusive and uncivil. Contrary to your pretensions, these templates are useful to the Jazz community and they were built with the greatest care because the category was not the correct vehicle to carryout the sought after functions and features. These templates were created under the suggestion of User:Lquilter during the category deletion discussion. Jazzeur (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. My next suggestion then would be to head to Village Pump and try to generate a consensus for special rules that apply only to you. But really, the first thing to try would be deletion review. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have entered some comments in the templates' discussion pages as per the warning boxe's instructions to hangon to the templates. Please go there to discuss your point of view. Jazzeur (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My point of view is expressed in the AFD. If you disagree, I would suggest WP:DR. as I have above. I do not understand why deletion review is objectionable to you, especially since your contribution has been deleted several times, and you consider the latest deletion unfair. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Repost of Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

template

Hi Jazzeur, One thing that might work on the template discussions would be to make it less obtrusive. Many templates are now moving to default "hide" so that just the top bar is shown. This alerts the reader to the template, gives them the option to click on the article/template header, or to click on "show" and see the contents; while maintaining a minimal footprint on the article. I would suggest that might alleviate some editors' concerns with template clutter. However, even if the template gets deleted; don't worry; there are still links to the relevant article from all of the winners. Those can be embedded or included as "See also" or included in sections for "awards given to X" on each page. Best, --Lquilter (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Lquilter, I have done my best to respond to that concern here. I am into my mid-sixties and I have seen this kind of debates many many times during my professional career. Throughout this process, I recognize a pattern that makes me very uncomfortable, facing this blatant abuse of power by a mob (always the same individuals) more concerned with the rule book than with the intrinsic usefulness of the tools implemented. At my age, time is running short and I do not intend to spend one more minute debating with the equivalent to a group of religious zealots. My goal was to make a significant contribution to this encyclopedia. My approach, based on the efficiency of the means did not work. My editor's days are over. Adios! p.s.: A personal thank you for your help and empathy. Jazzeur (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jazzeur, My suggestion at WP:DRV to "restore and let the TFD run its course" is to resolve the deletion review by restoring the template (undeleting it), and then letting the discussion about it at WP:TFD continue. IMO, the speedy delete was completely uncalled for. It sounds like it might be too late, but I hope you don't let this experience unduly color your opinion of the place. The basic principles (not always followed) are meant to be highly inclusive. I don't know if it might help, but everyone here is a volunteer including the admins, even including most of the developers. I think nearly everyone here means well, and wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, and are basically on the same side (spending time on something of significance). Folks (including admins) who frequently deal with the seamier side (there are folks who don't mean so well) can sometimes forget the overwhelming majority do mean well.

If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Happy-melon has done this. The TFD discussion has restarted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 26. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I second Rick Block's words. Also, I'd like to note -- this debate is bringing into view a general problem with awards; that we don't have a good "manual of style" way to handle awards. So my hope is that the discussion will trigger some useful thinking about a good way to handle all awards in a consistent way that presents the information to readers usefully, is easy & helpful to maintain, and improves the encyclopedia as a whole. ... So, even when we do something that fails (the category), it can end up generating something constructive. Sometimes it takes longer than other times, is all. <g> Best, Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rick and Lquilter, I just could not remain insentive to your intelligent words and constructive approach (i.e. getting to a solution rather than an "a priori" opposition to any initiative) and it made me rethink my decision and give this process a final chance to come up with a solution rather than a dead-end. Thank you both for your time and efforts. Jazzeur (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• For the time being I consider that the discussions at the template for deletion review is too Wiki technical (means or container) oriented for my understanding. I will intervene if process usefulness questions (content) are debated and if I have something useful to bring to the discussion. Jazzeur (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm very glad you're willing to stick around a bit more. Note that the template may well end up being deleted again. Another approach is to edit the articles, mentioning the award in text in the articles with a wikilink to the full list (no one can object to this!). Just FYI, the container template idea is to create a generalized "awards" template that would include specific awards templates for each award a person received. An article using this template might look like this (click "show" to see the specific awards). I think I might rather see a standard "awards" section in articles, possibly using templates to keep the look and feel of these sections the same, but the concept is very similar.

• In the measure that the election of an individual into a "Hall of Fame" can be called an "award" (the most resemblant would be the Time Person of the Year), the "awards" template approach would definitely serve the sought after purpose and usefulness. During his/her career, a given Jazz artist may receive more than one Grammy and Academy awards, but he/she will be inducted in the Down Beat Hall of Fame only once. That's the only difference. The Hall of Fame election is a lifetime achievement recognition. This said, the proposed "awards" template approach should not pose a problem for the fans or the researchers. In fact, they would expect the Down Beat Hall of Fame to be part of this "awards" template. I like it! BTW, this approach could also be used for sports. Jazzeur (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz? Three jazz related articles were once featured articles, however standards have changed enough that these articles are no longer considered to meet current standards (and only three jazz related articles are considered Wikipedia:good articles!). Any work you might do to restore these articles to featured status, or bring the "good" articles to featured status, or bring any other articles to "good" status would be greatly appreciated. IMO, jazz is an area woefully under covered in Wikipedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the pointer. At this time my answer would be tainted. After this episode is over, I will definitely consider it. Jazzeur (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)