User talk:TagoreEco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Would like to fix my entry Mudville so it conforms to your standards - don't know how!

Hi - I developed a Wiki entry for Mudville, and got these messages:

"This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources."

"This biographical article or section is written like a resume. Please help improve this article by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (help)"'

As to the first message, I cited several reliable sources in the Notes section. These are all reputable publications and the sources are also dated. What is it about these citations do you find objectionable? Or is there a more appropriate way to cite these sources?

As to the second message, I believe this passage may be an offending one (?)

"Core members Marilyn Carino and Ben (Benny Cha Cha) Rubin have distinguished themselves as adding sophistication to the genre with classic Hip-Hop stylings, elements of improvisational free jazz and attention to songcraft more influenced by Marvin Gaye and Duke Ellington than the minimalist, pop-based structure and lyrics by which the genre is most often characterized."

This, I felt, was an honest, somewhat personal description (but one that is echoed in many major publications) of why I believe Mudville deserves notoriety in Wikipedia, and why they have been influential in the "post Trip-Hop" music genre. I assumed there needed to be some sort of distinctive description to warrant the entry. Do you find it too editorial? Do I need to cite third-party sources to substantiate these comments?

The History/Bio section I felt was also rather straightforward - I included plaudits (fully cited, in the Notes section), again, to emphasize Mudville's noteworthiness.

I do not understand how this entry could be more neutral without losing its descriptiveness or making Mudville seem unworthy of inclusion here. I notice there are plenty of editorial comments in other artists' entries, but they somehow are allowed.

I am not Mudville or affiliated with them, by the way. I'm just a huge fan and I feel they are an important band. I would like to make sure they are included in the Wikipedia and given their due. Thank you for your assistance.

TagoreEco 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)TagoreEco

Hello there! Looking at the Mudville article, it seems that some of the description, such as the example you provide above, includes what are known as weasel and peacock language on Wikipedia- which glorify the subject without attributing.

When you say something about the band, you must be repeating what an external source has said, and citing it- ie singer xyz is noted for her multi-octave range (citation) and unqiue fusion of jazz and pop (citation). in 2007, magazine ABC voted her the greatest singer of the year in an online poll, etc.

Attribute what you say, and do not assert it, but rather comment that someone else has asserted it. Does that make sense?

If you have any more questions or need more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image tagging for Image:MeMicheadRed1183.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MeMicheadRed1183.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial use of Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial use of Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Mudville records RGB web.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mudville records RGB web.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mudville

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. dissolvetalk 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for the note. The most appropriate forum for leaving messages is a user's talk page (such as yours, where I'm leaving this), not a user page, but it's fine. It seems the Mudville article is legitimate, so I'll keep an eye in case someone tries to delete it or files some motion against you or it.

If you're looking to get to know Wikipedia and its protocol better, there are a number of ways. I see you've been to the Help Desk, but you can also try adoption or mentoring, where you'll get one-on-one advice and coaching from an experienced Wikipedian.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

The Rhymesmith 05:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)