User talk:Benzband/Archives/April 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions for April 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
2011: Jan · Feb ·Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec |
help for wiki articles that read like gushing advertisements?
edithi. . . . .may i ask for your assistance please with some heavily biased wikipedia articles? you may recall a revert you performed here earlier today, that was one such article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehreen_Mahmud&action=history
some articles on wikipedia were written heavily peppered with unjustified levels of praise, over-glorified adjectives/fantastic claims and information with no decent reference about their subjects (this includes one or two 'bands' that nobody has probably ever even heard of, who have no albums out and using one newspaper article with a concert review as the sole reference. . . definitely not notable enough to even be on wikipedia.) i tried to make these articles fit the wikipedia mold (neutral point of view, with sufficient reference, and concise rather than rambling on with praises, content that is not verified and exceptional claims, promo style) but today someone reverted 'all' my edits.
in the article about bangla rock, the intro alone gives undue importance to about 3 or 4 listed acts whose contribution is not as great as claimed, and there is an entire paragraph (with no sources at all) dedicated to a band that few, if anyone at all, has ever heard of.
when i reverted the articles back with an explanation, all my work was again almost instantly undone and i was sent a message claiming that i was performing 'disruptive editing'. since there was that instant revert of all my edits, now the problematic articles all read like free wikipedia advertisements about their subjects again, many even containing untrue claims. i have not re-reverted the edits but thought it best to ask you as a wikipedia authority to step in if possible and review the matter.
peacock/unverified content articles list - (i put the history links rather than direct links so you can see/compare the edits i made faster, my edits are under the name 'Ricose', and the other user who reverted the edits is 'Kmzayeem'.)
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuad_al_Muqtadir&action=history
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehreen_Mahmud&action=history
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mim_Bidya_Sinha_Saha&action=history
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nancy_(musician)&action=history
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rezwana_Choudhury_Bannya&action=history
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfaze&action=history
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_Free_(band)&action=history
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feedback_(band)&action=history
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoic_Bliss&action=history
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De-illumination&action=history
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunno&action=history
12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshi_rock&action=history
Ricose (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- updating to say i have just edited the articles again as i didn't receive a response yet from the person who messaged me about them. let's see what happens next. Ricose (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- thanks very much, i have left him a few links to wikipedia guidelines as well and explained my edits. hopefully he will edit the articles back accordingly, after he reads them. Ricose (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ben, okay, so i have tried to reason with this person about tone and puffery, yet they still insist, in particular, on continuing to keep a "peacock" tone to these two articles below, claiming 'supported by references' is justification enough to keep the articles that way (!) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De-illumination&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warfaze&action=history
They also keep adding the same few (completely, completely) non-notable garage bands back to this list of 'popular bands of Bangladesh' on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshi_rock&action=history
A minor mention in a concert review or something similar does mean that they are "popular"! It would be great if you could watch these articles for a bit, thanks. Ricose (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, I've told you several times not to remove the reliable sources from the articles but you kept on doing that, you have done it several times in the articles De-illumination and Warfaze (most recently this) and probably in other articles as well! Secondly, you have been removing more contents than you should, going with your edits it has been seen that all of your removals have not been puffs and peacocks. Besides, puffs and peacocks can be reworded but you have been removing the informations about the subjects giving the reason of removing puffs. Thirdly, if you really think that there are some contents which are violating WP:OR then you can simply add the maintenance templates in those articles, give a chance to other editors to verify those contents, removing the contents is not the only solution! --Zayeem (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Various internet archives are available for "reviving" dead links (for instance the Wayback Machine). I have made some edits to the three articles, which you may be interested in:
- Many articles relating to Bangladeshi music are in pretty bad shape. I just had a look at Stone Free (band) and have nominated it for deletion for lack of notability. benzband (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was actually asking for this kind of edit from User:Ricose for about two weaks! I'll try to fix the articles soon. --Zayeem (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, do you think you could possibly please not keep on adding back these just about completely unknown bands (Stone free pilots, 31 demerits, etc, or whatever they all are called) from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_rock Being barely mentioned in smoe random article does not make them "notable" enough to be on wikipedia, and that too, listed as "among the most popular bands." When they become notable, please feel free to add them back, but for the time being, please refrain from doing this. I have already explained numerous times why. Ricose (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you take a look at benzband's edit in the page?? I don't know what's your definition for the word popular but I have only added the bands which are supported by the sources. There was another band named Hemorrhage which I removed when I couldn't find any source. --Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, I and benzband have both posted a large amount of literature on your talk page concerning wikipedia policies and notability guidelines, and even more explanations are given in the edit histories. i think it's better if you go back and read all those, rather than edit-warring with me. Ricose (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you need to learn which are puffs and which are not! I asked you to take a look at benzband's edit on the page, he didn't tagged the contents which you are constantly removing from the articles. And you are still removing the references from the articles as you removed 5 references from reliable sources here. I don't know whether this is intentional or not, but please stop vandalizing those articles! --Zayeem (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- My friend, as a matter of fact, benzband actually nominated the entire page about that 'stone free' band or whatever they are for deletion...this being because they don't really qualify in terms of notability, much less qualify for being listed as a 'popular' band in an article about Bangla rock music. non-notable bands must indeed be removed. if they were that popular, please prove it with solid sources about the individual bands. a fleeting mention in an article is not a solid source. and please note that there is a distinct difference between vandalising a page, and trying to make them conform to wikipedia standards. i guess you would have known that had you taken the time to read all the links benzband and i posted on your talk page, i hope you shall do so when you get the time. Ricose (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I know about AfD for the article, I thought to remove it but decided to remove when it really gets deleted. But, that's about Stone Free, why are you removing the other bands from the list?? They are well supported by the sources. And removing references from an article is surely a blatant vandalism, please first take a look at those links by yourself, you seem to be too much confused or have other intentions. --Zayeem (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting repetitive. But here we go again:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band
- I believe I have repeated all of this to you multiple times. For a band or musician to be notable enough to mention on wikipedia, they need to meet certain notability guidelines. If a source alleges that a certain band, say, is 'the greatest band in the world', and yet there is not much other evidence available to support this, then that band, according to wikipedia standards, does not meet notability guidelines. For example, a google search for the band my 31st demerit, which you allege to be among the 'popular'/notable bands of Bangladesh, reveals just and and only one article; all other material about the band found online is self-published content, such is their 'popularity'. One single article simply does not qualify as enough 'support' to establish notability on wikipedia. And since you ask, my intentions are simply to ensure that articles here adhere to wikipedia guidelines. And also to ensure that advertisers/possible members of those bands themselves/friends of the band/ don't try to weasel up the importance of certain virtually non-existent subjects in articles by using just one or two "sources" and tons of peacock terms. So unless you can find multiple third-party sources to support your claims concerning these bands and their alleged popularity, rather than just edit-warring continuously, you may want to review your own intentions. Ricose (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism is not edit-warring, you have again removed 5 reliable sources here. About the band, it passes Criteria 7 and 10 as referred by the source. Moreover, even an admin had previously removed a deletion tag from the article mentioning reference provides strong suggestion of notability here. As I mentioned earlier, you first need to take a look at the policies by yourself before making these vandalisms. I've also asked you to take a look at benzband's edit in the articles to get an idea how to raise the issues. I've edited the articles and tried to improve them when benzband tagged them with some templates. Now, if you find anything that was tagged by benzband but still not fixed, you may raise it, but don't remove anything that was not tagged by benzband. Thanks --Zayeem (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify April Drive
editHi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.
WikiProject U2 + BIG SURPRISE
editHi Ben!
Do you like U2? Do you want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject U2? The project is undergoing a major renovation and revamp.
In any case, do NOT miss this BIG SURPRISE!!! ;)
All the bestest! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AFT5 update
editHey Benzband. I'm sorry to say that some bugs in code that the Article Feedback Tool is dependent on have resulted in us still not being able to deploy the latest version to en-wiki - although one advantage is that, because it's functioning on the German and French Wikipedias, the eventual release here will contain fixes for several newly-detected bugs without us having to bother you with them :P. At the moment, we're talking about several weeks of wait, I'm afraid - although the fix itself is not complex, it's dependent on Platform freeing up time to make and deploy it, and they're currently rather busy. I'll let you know when I have more news. Thanks :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Pending release of Notifications
editHey Benzband/Archives :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.
If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Help Project newsletter : Issue 6
edit
 |
Issue VI - April 2013 |
|
Open Help Conference The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation. It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help. There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on. |
Other news
|
|
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. | |