Cybotik

Welcome!

Hello, Cybotik! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Whiskey Bards (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Whiskey Bards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Cybotik, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Pyrates Royale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pyrates Royale 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/Pyrates Royale 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Are some genres of music systematically underreported?

> The question I was asking in reference to Peter Paul and Mary was whether undiscovered music by them would get the same media attention as undiscovered music by the Beatles or Michael Jackson.

Trivial question, but if you really needed an answer then Of course not, and a Kardashian nude photo would get still more media attention. It's also beside the point. Wikipedia really prefers scholarly sources, particularly secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and review articles in peer-reviewed scholarship publications.

> The same question could be asked of Woodie Guthrie. Would a new Woodie Guthrie album generate even a hundredth of the press attention as a new Rolling Stones album?

A new Woody Guthrie album would be a huge deal in independent, secondary sources. A new Stones album (yawn) released on the same week would get more press for the duration of its publicity push, but over time the Guthrie album would be considered more important, and get more written consideration (excluding trivial mentions such as discographical listings in Stones articles).

> But the larger question is why do the Wikipedia guidelines give greater weight to a an online local newspaper with a readership of under 1000 than to a YouTube channel, with a worldwide audience, and over 10,000 views?

Because self-published sources (including one's YouTube uploads) are not reliable. Because hit counters are easily gamed and not an accurate measure of anything but value as clickbait. And the phrase "worldwide audience" is baloney unless your band is big in China. Which I only mention since you seem to place a lot of emphasis on quantities, as if this made your case. It doesn't. What if this upload were linked from a widely-read news article as a tangential example of something not specifically related the article's subject? What if practically all the 10,000 who played this upload decided it was undistinguished and a waste of their time?

> And the Whiskey Bards are not simply limited to their YouTube audience. Their music is available on the subscription music service Spotify.com. Spotify has made national news twice recently, first when Taylor Swift pulled her music from their site, and again when the Beatles music became available on Spotify for the first time. Spotify has apps available for iOS, Android, Vizio, Samsung, and Roku. They are certainly a well-known and permanent online presence that has made significant notice of the Whiskey Bards.

Spotify is hardly a curated service—getting played on Spotify is barely more impressive than being delivered by the post office.

> But because Spotify is a subscription site, I cannot rely on it as a reference because many of the links would redirect to a "Please subscribe" page. But for what it's worth, they do have one open song from the group. Fireship Cybotik (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Linking to Spotify would not demonstrate notability.

I feel like no matter what anyone says, you will keep making more similar arguments. You are not the first one to try this. Here are some things you should read that will help you understand how notability is established on Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions – especially the introduction, but the rest of the article is a good education on what's been argued before on WP and how it went
• General notability guideline — summarized as Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

If you want to do writeups on under-documented bands, that's positively brilliant. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. This is a job for your blog, or your website, where you can publish all and as much as you deem fit. There are plenty of tools available if you want to get started on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia seems to be based, at least partially, on the personal tastes and opinions of editors. Your (yawn) comment regarding the Rolling Stones is a derogatory personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the guidelines, nor is it a statement of established fact. Your statement about Woodie Guthrie's purely hypothetical album is a prediction of a speculative, alternate-reality future. Again, not about the guidelines. Obviously, you have allowed your own musical preferences to influence your criticisms. Despite your criticism of my reliance on numbers, what it comes down to is a popularity contest. Significant coverage means a number of references. And those references are unlikely to pay heed to any musical act unless they're getting a certain number of dollars in ad sales for covering the popular entertainment. Wikipedia is becoming less encyclopedia and more pop culture. Significant segments of the culture will continue to be underrepresented and even ignored. Cybotik (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Whiskey Bards

Hello, Cybotik. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Whiskey Bards".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Whiskey Bards (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Whiskey Bards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:The Whiskey Bards has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Whiskey Bards. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:The Whiskey Bards has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Whiskey Bards. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Whiskey Bards (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Whiskey Bards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Whiskey Bards. Re-evaluation requested according to standard standards.

Please re-evaluate my draft according to the same standards by which the Wikipedia pages below were accepted. All of them have fewer sources than I do, and some of them use the same sources. You cannot claim I have too few sources when the articles below do not have as many. And you cannot claim that my sources are inadequate as some of them are shared with the articles below. I now have eight more sources than the first article on the list below, and the one valid source on that page is also one of my sources. If that article was acceptable, with only one valid source, then my article should be acceptable, since I used precisely the same source. If my article is not acceptable, then you are using different standards than other editors.

This Wikipedia page, Going_Overboard_(album), has only two sources, one of them invalid, the other is also one of my sources. If it is a good enough source for an already accepted page, it should be good enough for mine.

This music article, Rubber_Biscuit has only three sources, one of them You Tube.

This article about a band, Sparx_(US_band), has only two sources, plus a link to the band's website.

This musical show, EFX_(show) has only two sources.

Cybotik (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. And notability is only somewhat about references (though proper practice is to ensure everything is referenced with a reliable source). References establish notability, but in theory if there are verifiable claims of notability then an article would easily survive even with inadequate referencing. Without digging:

• Going_Overboard_(album) may not pass WP:NALBUM
• Rubber Biscuit does not really indicate notabilityunder WP:NSONG, but I suspect there's probably coverage out there
• Based on the article content, Sparx_(US_band) would definitely pass WP:NBAND due to Billboard charting
• EFX_(show) has all kinds of issues, as tagged, but claims of notability aren't one of them.

To establish that the Whiskey Bards are notable, and thus warrant an article, you'd need to show that they meet one or more criteria in WP:BAND, and/or that they are unquestionably notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG). I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) online. Something like http://www.reviewjournal.com/view/las-vegas-annual-age-chivalry-renaissance-festival-set-take-over-sunset-park is passing coverage, and doesn't establish notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Hydronium HydroxideUser:Hydronium Hydroxide

I have believe I have already established that Whiskey Bards meet the criteria in [WP:BAND]].

Wikipedia Criteria for musicians and ensembles

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The musical group my article is about meets this criterion. My reference to the other Wikipedia pages was not so much about the pages themselves, but about the particular sources they used.

rambles.net has been acceptably used as a source more than twenty times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=Rambles.net&searchToken=5shz9k66y4k300jvxsq8fu6f6

Bilgemunky has been acceptably used as a source five times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bilgemunky&go=Go&searchToken=21c6vutmvj5x0jzih41zpalgj

My article uses both of these sources. That makes multiple sources. They are non-trivial, published works, specifically album reviews. They are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the group. That fits the first criterion for musicians and ensembles. And since Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that an article about a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, according to WP:MUSICBIO, then an article needs to meet only one. My article meets the first one.

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires that music album reviews come from either a source such as a professional DJ or from a publication with a paid or volunteer writing and editorial staff.

rambles.net is an online cultural magazine focusing on folk music of various genres. Here is a link to their writing and editorial staff. http://www.rambles.net/staffbios.html

Bilgemunky Radio was a pirate-music-themed radio show. A pirate version of Dr. Demento. Bilgemunky was the on-air moniker of Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who produced and hosted the show, as well as providing DJ services for pirate-themed parties and festivals. The show was carried in various markets in syndication and online. There were over 200 episodes. The broadcast has since ended, but the online reviews of various groups, albums, books, movies, games, and alcohol are still available.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090522143648/http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/marooned/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/lost-at-sea/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/music/going-overboard/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/category/pirate-reviews/rum/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/rum/review-fortuna-8-year/

https://www.behance.net/gallery/19118491/Bilgemunkycom-Film-Review

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/books/sea-witch/

http://www.bilgemunky.com/pirate-reviews/games/pegleg-petes-deck-of-royal-rogues-pirate-playing-cards/

WP:MUSIC/SOURCE requires either a professional DJ, such as Gerard Heidgerken, aka Bilgemunky, or a online or print publication with an editorial and writing staff, such as rambles.net.

For some reason, every time I prove notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines and history, I get passed off to another reviewer.

Cybotik (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Zombie Cafe

Hi Cybotik. I've just reviewed Zombie Cafe. The two cites against the name were unnecessary as the third and fourth references show that it exists. A couple of the cites (Simcity, D&D) were not relevant to the article, as they are not about ZC in any way. The major problems with the article are:

• Details about the game should cite reliable sources even though gameplay might be obvious from personal experience (WP:V / WP:OR)
• Although it establishes existence, the article doesn't establish notability of ZC. Wikipedia:Notability (video games) provides more info on what is required for an individual article. It looks like ZC may meet notability requirements so I won't PROD it, but on a quick glance there's not a huge amount of significant coverage.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC) (if you respond, please ping me by linking to my username, eg: [[User:Hydronium Hydroxide]] or {{ping|Hydronium Hydroxide}}, which will work provided you sign your msg )

@Hydronium Hydroxide: While the Zombie Cafe article had been examined and approved previously, I recognize the deficiencies you pointed out. I added links to two websites describing game play and added a section (sourced), describing a parent's lawsuit against Apple that was partly based on Zombie Cafe's in-app purchases being sold to children using their parents' accounts. Cybotik (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Whiskey Bards (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Whiskey Bards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Whiskey Bards concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Whiskey Bards, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Whiskey Bards) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Whiskey Bards, Cybotik!

Wikipedia editor Jytdog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

three drafts failed; it was not correct to just create this after that.

To reply, leave a comment on Jytdog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey Bards

You say your article met the criteria for notability. I say it did not. You did not provide evidence of multiple, non-trivial mentions in published works appearing in sources that are reliable. Yes, there were multiple mentions, but they did not fulfil this criterion. Deb (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you verify that these reviewers were professionals? Deb (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the reviewers is Sarah Meador, a writer/reviewer for rambles.net, an online magazine of art and culture with a full staff, as the Wikipedia guidelines recommend. It has been around 18 years. Sarah Meador is no longer active with the magazine, but she is listed as a former member, and her reviews are still active.

The other reviewer is Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who uses the handle "Bilgemunky." For six years, he hosted a pirate-themed radio show. It was a Dr. Demento styled show, with an emphasis on sea shanties and pirate music. As part of the show, he reviewed pirate movies, pirate books, nautical-themed music albums, and even clothing and rum brands. The radio show no longer airs, and Bilgemunky only performs at pirate-themed special events now. But the podcasts of his show are still available on iTunes and his reviews remain active on his website.

Cybotik (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking you were talking about the two reviews that actually appeared in newspapers, not the ones from websites. It would help greatly if you could include a quotation from the articles in question to verify what it actually says about the band (against what the reference in your proposed article implies it says). You still have the option of retrieving the draft and improving it further. Deb (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)