User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive02

• User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive02 (July-August 2007)

Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame

FYI, I really like the table - great move! Sorry if I was a little over-zealous on my edits the other night, too. Let me know if I can help - I can't wait to start writing articles for the artists. – Freechild (BoomCha) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the table. I never complain when people add value! (Especially when it saves me effort.) Thanks for the offer of help; feel free to fill in any gaps that take your fancy - especially the 2007 table when I've created it. I can't wait to start writing articles for the artists. Don't let me hold you up! Pdfpdf

if we have the date of death we don't need to say (deceased) - Agreed, but what about where we don't have the date of death? (Viz: Lloyd Hunter (deceased); Sylvester (Syl) Johnson (deceased).) Pdfpdf 14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little embarrassed about removing those "deceased" without dates... I'll dig them up right now and stick 'em into the chart. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing that birth-year is often difficult to find, and also, different sources sometimes come up with different answers! Pdfpdf 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am finding all kinds of info about Omaha's music scene beyond what is at the OBMHoF. If you want a taste, google Lloyd Hunter's band, "The Serenaders". Then there's the Cotton Club Boys, who once included the great Charlie Christian. The International Sweethearts of Rhythm had some folks who became big names, and others who faded away. The following paragraph is from http://crooners.tribe.net/thread/c1a007bc-4d05-4be5-8814-49556ac48246

"Ernestine "Tiny" Davis, Ray Carter, Johnnie Mae Stansbury, and Edna Williams, trumpeters all; Marge Pettiford, Amy Garrison, Helen Saine, Grace Bayron, Willie Mae Wong, and Viola Burnside on saxophones; Judy Bayron, Helen Jones, and Ina Bell Byrd on trombones; and a rhythm section featuring Lucille Dixon on bass, Roxanna Lucas on guitar, Johnnie Mae Rice on piano, and Pauline Braddy on the drums. Evelyn McGee shared vocal duties with Anna Mae Winburn, who led the band.

Yes. I have to admit that the quality of info on OBMHoF is not particularly high, and that's a bit disappointing. Pdfpdf 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am about to do up some articles on the folks above - there is so much out here its kind of overwhelming. A little background for you: I grew up in North Omaha in the 1980s, as gangs and drugs and violence were tearing the community apart. I moved away over 10 years ago, and now I'm fascinated by what I had heard about, but never learned until now: That place is deep, heavy with history and culture and everything. So I dabble in all of it, trying to learn as much as I want to, and share what I can. So finding this stuff is a spectacular boost to my morning. Did you know North Omaha was home to four big bands from the 1920s through the 1940s? I didn't! – Freechild (BoomCha) 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insite. (I gather you live in DC now?) So I guess you were too young to have been around in the 1960s and 1970s when the funk scene was rising, and presumably by the 80s a lot of the North Omaha music scene had disappeared? By coincidence, I went to a big band music show on Friday evening; it was something of a unique experience - these days it's very rare to see 4 trumpets, 4 trombones, half-a-dozen assorted saxophones, a drum kit and an electric piano all on the stage at the same time, and hence it's rare to hear that fat brass sound. (In contrast, it's quite common to see that many string instruments on a stage.) I made me reflect that in the first half of the 20th century, you probably would have had a choice of venues to see such "orchestras". Well, it's 1am here. Enjoy your Sunday morning! Pdfpdf 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Rev. Henderson... Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits. However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine. The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW! So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two. Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier. Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.

Regarding the OBMHoF, I think that the creativity of the guy running it must be waning. But an important thing I try to remember is that I only report the facts, and nothing but the facts. If I'm interested in a topic, I stay with the article... but if I lose interest, I let the article go. – Freechild (BoomCha) 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Henderson

Hi Again. I need you to work your magic (y'know - add categories, etc.) on Rev. Patrick Henderson - It's another one of those pages I started in May and forgot about! It has started attracting the attention of bots. Thanks. Pdfpdf 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I specialize in finding the notability of obscure - but notable. Do you think Henderson is sufficiently notable? If not, what line-of-action do you suggest? Also, I can't find any biographical information; can you? Regards, Pdfpdf 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Rev. Henderson...

Thanks for your edits and additions. That was exactly the sort of thing I was after.

Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits.

That was my experience, too.

However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine.

Good. (That solves that problem.)

The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW!

WOW indeed!! How/where did you find that?

So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two.

Yes please. I don't think there's any hurry.

Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier.

If it were easier, I would probably have found it myself ...  ;-)

Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.

I tried various combinations of Rev/Reverend/Pat/Patrick and Henderson. (I didn't think to try instruments). This hand thing is, to say the least, unexpected. I had assumed that I couldn't find anything post-2005 because I wasn't looking hard enough. Presumably the explanation is his hand? (I think I might change the "to the present day" statement.) Pdfpdf 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole situation really gives a new meaning to the Americanism "talk to the hand". I cleaned up that citation and found another detail - Henderson wrote his chapter in that book. I guess you could say he really gave the author a hand. I'll keep digging up anything about Henderson today. I wonder if I'll find a picture of him - I'm sure he is handsome. These sure are handy puns. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, once again, it's bedtime here. Thanks for your help. Regards, Pdfpdf 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything to lend a hand. I like to get my hands around an article and really work with it - but you'll find I'll be kinda hands off about this now. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you so much,
my dear Pdfpdf! :)

Dear friend, that was incredibly sweet, thank you so much! :) In your compliment and gracious words to me, there is such beautiful poetry, that it is only fair that I repay your beautiful gesture with something equally poetic...

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends!

I know it's simple, but it sums up my gratitude perfectly. May you have a beautiful day, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anita Baker

I dug, I found something you'd posted on a forum with this question, and I cannot find anything specifically about Anita Baker singing "What a Fool Believes". Aretha Franklin? Found her. George Michael citation? Found it. But I can find nothing - not a thing - mentioning the remote possibility that Anita Baker sang this song. Give me another one when you get it. – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have concerns about the notability of Slowdown (venue). I'll work on that, but want to give you a chance too, as well. – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the GM citation to What a Fool Believes. RE: Music in Omaha, I'm just tweaking it. Also, aside from the above, I don't see anything notable about Slowdown Virginia. I am finding a lot of notable citations for the venue though. – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some notability stuff to the Slowdown article - but it could use more. Two suggestions: Avoid in-line citations for off-WP links, like this one. They are frowned upon by editors, and should probably either be done as citations, like this or stuck into an external links section. The second suggestion is to cite all the info you find whenever you add it. So all the history info in the Slowdown article should be cited to the source. Otherwise the writing might read like you're someone personally affiliated with the venue, and that there is a POV issue. Just a few suggestions - take 'em or leave 'em. Give me anther Anita Baker-like fastball when you get a one - that was aggravatingly fun. (PS - I'm still looking - I've got some "feelers" out among musician friends. Was it a live recording by chance?) – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Veterans

Hi there. I have read your talk page. However, I'm still wondering about your removal of http://www.oneconnect.ie Irish Veterans - The Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen & Women (ONE) from all of the Irish Military pages. (i.e. Irish Army‎; Irish Defence Forces‎; Reserve Defence Forces‎;Naval Service Reserve‎; Irish Air Corps; Irish Army Reserve‎; Irish Naval Service)‎
I can see how you might argue that it could be spam, but on the other hand, one could justifiably argue that the Veterans were, and to some degree still are, an important part of the Military, and whether it is spam or not seems to me to be more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
However, I'm willing to be enlightened, so please, enlighten me as to why a link to the Veterans is spam.
(Is it simply a case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans would be OK, but an external link isn't?)
Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You were adding the same link to a number of articles, which wikipedia defines as spam. Moreover, the link is appropriate on a page about Irish Veterans (and it is there, now only once, not a link for every occasion it could possibly be linked), but it is not directly linked to e.g. Irish Army (that should have a link to the official page of the Irish Army, which is there, the page Irish Army can have a section about its veterans, which wikilinks to the Irish Army Veterans page, where the link would be appropriate. As you were adding the linkThe way the link was added, and the way it was linked, was more promotional, and aimed at tunneling people away from Wikipedia, than to improve the wikipedia. That also gives me the feeling you havethe person adding the link has a conflict of interest, are you involved in the link.

In all cases, per all the guidelines and policies I have linked in this answer, discuss sSuch edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have amended my answer, the user I am answering to is not the one adding the link, my mistake, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

but it is not directly linked to - Yeah, I see your point. I agree. (It's only indirectly related; the link should only be from where it is directly related.)
adding the same link to a number of articles ... - Presumably there are cases where adding the same link to a number of articles is quite valid? (I agree that the cases where it's not valid are pretty obvious!) For example, having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each album's page. Is that valid?
Such edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. - Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Which edits? Theirs or yours? On all six talk pages? What does "i.s.o." mean? (in stead of ??)
Hope this explains. - Yes, it does, thank you. It explains it quite well. (Somehow I didn't pick up on the "directly related" criteria from reading your talk page.) Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By-the-way: Please consider the alternatives before readding the link - It took me about four goes at reading that sentence before realising you didn't mean "reading" or "redding". Perhaps the easily confused would find "re-adding" less confusing? Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I meant that they should discuss their edits, especially if someone has expressed his/her concerns if it is valid (as I did in this case with the good-faith {{uw-spam1}}-warning) on their talkpage. With i.s.o. I indeed meant in stead of.

There are hardly cases where adding links to a number of articles is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, hence, there is often no reason to add external links, only when they really add to an article. It is very difficult for one single link to be directly linked to a 'large' number of articles, then there are bound to be more specific documents on the server that gets linked to, and then they often better used as a reference (The question I would ask then is: 'is there really nothing to tell in the wikipedia document where you can use the information in the document you want to link to?'). Also see here WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer, such link-additions are sure to set of the alarms we have on IRC.

I will insert a dash, thanks for the hint. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Would having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each Rolling Stones album's wiki page be valid? Pdfpdf 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I now realise that the following is rather simplistic, but given your linkfarm comments, (Is it the case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans [or Rolling Stones] would be OK, but an external link isn't?) Pdfpdf 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The page Rolling Stones has a link to the homepage of the Rolling Stones. All album pages should have a wikilink back to Rolling Stones (I would guess that all these pages start with 'xxx is the n-th album of the Rolling Stones', so there we are), and could have an external link to www.rollingstones.com/albums/xxx .. that is again a direct link between the subject of the article and the subject of the page linked to.

Linking the page for 'The organisation of Veterans of the Irish army' from veterans is a bit far-fetched I think. It should be linked on 'Irish army', of course. Having the link to 'The organisation of Veterans of the Irish army' on 'Veteran' would probably mean that there is a list on that page with all organisations of veterans, which would again not comply with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. But is is all in using common sense, I mainly reacted here because an account was adding external links only, which, in my humble opinion, is not improving the encyclopedia. Kind regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vaughan

Sure, go for it with the Music in Omaha article. It really needs work - and any citations you can find! Thanks! Oh, and by the way, why hasn't your gracious friend from the OBMHoF replied to my email? Did you get my cc of it? Hmmm. – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shoot! I thought I did edit them out - at least from that last email. Sorry! – Freechild (BoomCha) 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm replying to your question on my talk page. – Freechild (BoomCha) 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Still nothing from Vaughn. I searched my junk mail folder and everything. I'll try him again right now.– Freechild (BoomCha) 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I put another email over to Vaughn suggesting that I could share my research about the OBMHoF members with him, but he still hasn't replied. So I'm going to let go of that one - no big deal. Oh, I did some research and I think I've come up with an answer to a question you had:

• While its true that Helen Jones Woods was a member of the International Sweethearts of Rhythm, she was particularly unremarkable in her playing. However, one of her children is Cathy Hughes, who founded a company called Radio One, which owns dozens of radio stations across the US. I'm sure that Hughes stature had something to do with Jones Woods' induction.

Mystery solved - for me. What do you think? – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one from the OBMHoF done: Lois "Lady Mac" McMorris. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What a Fool Believes

• 04:23, 30 July 2007 (hist) (diff) What a Fool Believes (→External link - Removed external link. Video pulled from YouTube.)

Why? Pdfpdf 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The editing description, I thought, said it all. The link pointed to a video from YouTube that is no longer there. I don't thinking linking to a video that is being reproduced without the appropriate rights is a good idea, also.DeeKenn 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place.)

• The editing description only says the what, not the why. So no, it doesn't say it all.
• I hadn't realised that it was no longer there. (It was there last time I looked ... ) So, OK, that in itself is a more than good enough reason to remove the link.
• However, the editing description says: "Removed external link. Video pulled from YouTube"; i.e. this "explanation" doesn't say anything about the video not being there, or why is should be removed. So all I'm left with is your subsequent reply: "I don't thinking linking to a video that is being reproduced without the appropriate rights is a good idea". So, again, I would ask: "Why?". (However, as the video is no longer there, this is a somewhat academic question, and your answer won't make any difference to the situation, so it would seem somewhat pointless to ask.)

Case closed? Pdfpdf 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

--

As I previously said, as far as I'm concerned, the "case" is "closed" - the fact that the video is no longer there is excellent justification for the edit you made.

However, it seemed to me that you were seeking a response from me.
If so, I include one below.
If not, just ignore what's below.
Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I think the misunderstanding revolves around my choice of words and (now admitted) brevity. "Pulled" was, then, not the right word to use. I didn't think of the differences in meaning across the pond (I'm American, BTW). I accept full responsibility for the confusion. In the future I will be more verbose about my edits and will choose my words more carefully. Thank you for the lesson. I will take it with me to my next edit/contribution. DeeKenn 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the below response. I'm glad I didn't. I learned where I went wrong and now I know how not to do it again. Thank you! DeeKenn 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place. See your talk page for my response.

Well, how would I know if I got a message otherwise?

One way is to add the-page-in-question to your watchlist.

I need the notification at the top of the page. I do not visit people's talk pages unless summoned.

That's why I responded on your talk page rather than mine.

To address some of your points. You said:

However, the editing description says: "Removed external link. Video pulled from YouTube"; i.e. this "explanation" doesn't say anything about the video not being there, or why is should be removed. So all I'm left with is your subsequent reply: "I don't thinking linking to a video that is being reproduced without the appropriate rights is a good idea". So, again, I would ask: "Why?". (However, as the video is no longer there, this is a somewhat academic question, and your answer won't make any difference to the situation, so it would seem somewhat pointless to ask.)

The remark I left is more than enough, IMO.

If it were more than enough, then I wouldn't have felt the need to ask the question "Why?", would I.
So clearly, it wasn't more than enough.
Of course (in your opinion) you would think it's enough. If you didn't think it was enough, I expect that you would have said something different which you did think was enough.
(Note that when you try to communicate with someone, if they don't understand what you mean, then you haven't communicated.)

"Video pulled from YouTube" means that it has been removed (aka "pulled") from YouTube.

I see. ("Pulled" means something quite different in England and Australia.)

Why was it removed? I have no idea. If you want to contact the person who posted the video, or even YouTube, then feel free.

As to why posting links to copyrighted works is not a good idea, this should really be common sense and I'm sure is covered under some Wikipedia guideline.

Quoting one's sources frequently involves posting a link to a copyrighted work, so I don't see why this "should be common sense".

Furthermore, YouTube links are transient in nature. Posting a link to one is pointless as a resource as it is destined to change at some point.

I see. (By-the-way: I wasn't the one who posted the link. And "Engineer Bob" is pretty hot on these sort of things, so when he left it there, I assumed it was OK.)

I hope that clarifies some issues you seem to be having.

Yes thank you.

Please direct any further comments to my talk page so that I know you have responded.

All of my comments have been placed on your talk page; I haven't put any of my comments on my talk page (except one which said "See your talk page for my response.")

DeeKenn 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt Bianco - Pukkabosh

(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable? Pdfpdf 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for saying its current. If other pages can have people are currently dating so and so then this is relevant. Lee Dennison is an international casting director, has his own website, is notable and therefore is relevant. Thanks.

Oh dear, you're getting a bit of a rocky introduction to WP! When I look back to my early talk page archives, I can see that I disagreed with some of the edits, deletions and reversions that were done to some of my contributions. I think it takes a little while to get used to the "rules" of WP, and how WP operates. Also, as a new editor, I imagine that you're keen to get on with contributing, and less keen to get bogged down with the Manual of Style and the other documents mentioned in your "Welcome!" message.

Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.

As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)

You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.

I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.

Matt Bianco - Jfdwolff

Although I agree with your actions and explanations, don't you think it would be more polite to discuss it on Pukkabosh's talk page? Pdfpdf 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have twice given very clear edit summaries. It seems Pukkabosh is reading those edit summaries when reinserting the trivia. Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. True, Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't WP:BITE, but I don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote an experienced Wikipedian: "Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't WP:BITE", but it seems to me that although you're not actually "bite"ing, you're not exactly "introducing him/her gently" to the requirements of WP either.
Yes, your second WP:ES was unusually detailed, and I understood it and thought it very clear. But given his/her newness to WP, I can imagine that it might have gone straight over his/her head.
Yes indeed, Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. And I, too, don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary.
However, I'm not talking about every revert. I just think we should be a little more polite to (and tolerant of) new editors, and should make some effort to direct them back onto "the straight and narrow".
Given his/her latest comment (viz: if a partner is not valid, then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site(sic)) he/she doesn't seem to have much idea about what "the straight and narrow" is!!
Regards, Pdfpdf 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

More on Matt Bianco - Jfdwolff to Pukkabosh

At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?

The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).

I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canberra International Airport

Good work! And it's nice to see that someone else is keeping an eye on this page. (The page has a history of being "censored".) Thanks, Pdfpdf 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries - it's pretty blatant stuff. Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues. --Nick Dowling 10:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

> Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues.
Perhaps the person is a politician?

Oh dear! You've introduced a pile of errors. The facts are:

• The Commonwealth Govt owns the land.
• They have leased it to Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd.
• CIA P/L own the lease, and therefore the right to do pretty much whatever they please there.
• CIA P/L do NOT own the Airport; they own the lease.
• The Airport is run by Capital Investment Group P/L.

Pdfpdf 10:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Could you fix it up? Citations will probably be needed to make it harder for the airport to remove anything it doesn't like. --Nick Dowling 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. (I'll be leaving the citations alone. I agree that they might slow the propagandist down.) Pdfpdf 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't as hard as I thought it would be!
BTW There's a red link to Jon Stanhope Media Release in one of the citations you added.
Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of comment added to Matt Bianco

12:58, 21 August 2007 212.22.3.8 (Talk) (6,764 bytes) (Undid revision 152567300 by Pdfpdf (talk) sorry but it is - maybe take to discussion?)

sorry but it is - How is it relevant? And what is it relevant to? If you feel it is relevant, you need to explain how/why - either as part of the text, or as a footnote/reference.
maybe take to discussion? - As I said, see User talk:Pukkabosh. Clearly you didn't look, so the following is copied from there to here. Pdfpdf 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

-- Matt Bianco --

(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable? Pdfpdf 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for saying its current. If other pages can have people are currently dating so and so then this is relevant. Lee Dennison is an international casting director, has his own website, is notable and therefore is relevant. Thanks.

<deleted>

Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.

As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)

You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.

I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.

--More on Matt Bianco--

At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?

The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).

I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for this and I will perhaps start a new page for Mark v soon with relevant links and info. Its a shame though that user Pdfpdf resorts to bullying tactics when addressing other people especially user pukkabosh whom i saw was new and it hardly entices people to resolve situations whereas your comments are useful and polite and unpersonal. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.22.3.8 (talk) 12:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised to read that you feel I am resorting to bullying tactics. I've only copied a small portion of the conversation to your talk page. I would very much appreciate it if you would read the complete conversation on pukkabosh's and jfdwolff's talk pages, and explain to me how I'm bullying. I've gone to great efforts to try to explain things to pukkabosh, and even managed to convince jfdwolff, a much more experienced and eloquent user than I am (who was initially loath to explain his actions), to explain to pukkabosh why jfdwolff was reverting pukkabosh's contributions. So I'm quite surprised, and a little upset, to read that you feel I'm bullying, and I would very much appreciate understanding why you say I am. In anticipation of your reply, Thank you Pdfpdf 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By-the-way, I am the person who copied jfdwolff's answer here. I agree with you that he has done a much better job of explaining his actions than I was able to. If you wish him to receive your compliment and thanks, you may want to post them on his talk page as he would be unaware of this conversation here. Pdfpdf 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Winans family

On User talk:Bobo192, Pdfpdf said:
As an explanation, the above is useless. It just says what you did (which is obvious anyway and doesn't require explanation.) It doesn't say why you did it.

Though I simply reverted the edits made by this anonymous user, as you go on to state, the article did in itself need lots of cleanup which I felt I wasn't able to do by myself, knowing little about the subject matter. Thank you very much for taking this job on yourself. Hopefully this kind of incident will not happen too often from here on. Bobo. 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rev. Patrick Henderson

I'm not too familiar with the use of categories, but wouldn't Rev. Patrick Henderson fit into both of those categories?
(And perhaps some other categories too?) Pdfpdf 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the efforts of the Gospel Wikiproject (WP:Gospel) has been to clean up Gospel music related articles. A few months ago the focus was placing articles in subcategories and using the main categories only for those articles that don't fit anywhere else. You do have some occasions where a person may fit in multiple subcategories (Gospel singer, Gospel composer, etc.) in that case it's okay to list them in both subcategories. Hope this helps.
Absolon S. Kent 12:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary

14:26, 22 August 2007 Eliz81 (Talk | contribs) m (10,186 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 216.21.61.185; No citation for BLP fact. using TW)

What's a "BLP fact"? Thanks, Pdfpdf 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf, long time no see! I was referring to WP:BLP, which requires quite stringently that biographies of living people are carefully sourced and cited, especially if disparaging. The user before edited the bio of the living singer Michael McDonald (singer), claiming he was known for his "legendary sexual exploits". I'm assuming this was vandalism, but I tried to assume good faith and merely point out that such a claim requires a citation to back it, instead of calling it vandalism. Hope this clears it up, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. Always the diplomat! Thanks for the decoding.

Yes, it has been a while. I guess now that I've been around for a little while, I have a better idea how WP works, and I'm stepping on less toes! Cheers, Pdfpdf 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Winans family

I like what you did to the "Winans family" page. Good work. Thanks, Pdfpdf 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally got a little free time so I decided to start working on a few of the Gospel music articles (formatting only; no content and information changes).
BTW - You're welcome to help. Take a look at WP:Gospel if you're interested.
Absolon S. Kent 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(I gather you prefer to talk here rather than on your page? That suits me - I prefer to see both sides of the "conversation" in the one place.)
Hi again. Heaven knows what I'm interested in! Currently I seem to be jumping around all over the place, but thanks for the invitation. Cheers, Pdfpdf 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Can you tell me what "diffuse parent cats" means?

(I assume it has nothing to do with desexing felines. ;-) )

Thanks in anticipation, Pdfpdf 11:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason, "diffuse" is Wikipedia jargon for depopulating a category by moving all or most of its articles into more specific subcategories (such as moving an article from Category:Indie rock groups/Category:Australian musical groups to the crosscategory Category:Australian indie rock groups instead.) Bearcat 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bother you, but I expect that you would know the answer ...
I gather that it's a no-no to link to myspace and you tube.
Can you point me at the explanation of why this is the case?
Many thanks, Pdfpdf 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(BTW: The Matt Bianco irrelevant comment add/delete tussle has rekindled, this time with User talk:212.22.3.8, and you've come up smelling of roses! (Conversely, I've been classified as a bully!) Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) )

I wouldn't say MySpace and YouTube are completely banned, but they are user-generated and score very low as sources. It's not authoritative for anything. The only exception would be the MySpace page of someone already known for other reasons, or YouTube content generated by such a person. I find it very hard demonstrating notability for internet phenomena; mention in the mainstream press is about the minimum crition I can think of.

The relevant policy is WP:RS (and WP:V) and WP:CITE and WP:EL. JFW | T@lk 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Pdfpdf 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Winans Family

05:13, 24 August 2007 Jgcarter (Talk | contribs) (6,582 bytes) (linked to PureSprings Gospel and removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus nor are there any sources plus it was not NPOV)

Greetings!

This Matthew Winans thing is a curly one. Would you mind having a look at the Revision history please?

removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus
Yes, I agree. You'll notice that I made an almost identical comment myself, viz:
02:44, 22 August 2007 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (7,781 bytes) (Although a family member, Matthew Winans is almost irrelevant to this article, which focuses on the Gospel Music involvement of the Winans family. Also, there are no sources quoted.)

I discussed the matter with Bobo192:

21:12, 21 August 2007 Bobo192 (Reverted edits by 70.176.109.143 (talk) to last version by 70.108.118.206)

As an explanation, the above is useless. It just says what you did (which is obvious anyway and doesn't require explanation.)
It doesn't say why you did it.

I know why you did it (the addition is irrelevant), but I imagine that newer contributors have no idea. This is evidenced by the fact that 70.176.109.143 and particularly Mastariale21 (who is a brand new user) have gone to quite some effort to restore and improve it. (Mastariale21 spent over an hour on it.)

Although strongly tempted to revert it all myself (just like you did), I'm loath to discourage a new user by doing this. So instead I've attempted to make it seem more relevant ... Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I simply reverted the edits made by this anonymous user, as you go on to state, the article did in itself need lots of cleanup which I felt I wasn't able to do by myself, knowing little about the subject matter. Thank you very much for taking this job on yourself. Hopefully this kind of incident will not happen too often from here on. Bobo. 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's irrelevant; I know very little about professional basketball, but I do know it has nothing to do with gospel music!

I'm afraid this sort of incident happens quite frequently, particularly with new users. I'm going through another one at the moment with Matt Bianco. Cheers, Pdfpdf 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it still needs more work, but I think it was making progress, and hence I also think you may have been a bit too quick-off-the-mark removing it. It's only been there for 3 days, and a lot of work has been done on it in that time, and it has been improved dramatically. It would be a shame to throw all that work away, particularly when doing so would also discourage a new user.

nor are there any sources
I disagree. When I made my edit comment, there were indeed no sources. There are now some, but I agree that there are several important ones missing. (Knowing nothing about professional basketball, I've exhausted my ability to find them!)

plus it was not NPOV
Really? I thought I'd been fairly successful toning it done, and thought I'd achieved NPOV. Please point out those bits which you feel are not NPOV - I'd like to learn the error of my opinions.

So, where do we go from here?
I'd like to reinstate it for a while in the hope that it gets sufficiently improved to be tolerated. If it doesn't get out of the substandard category within a week or two, we'll need to review the situation.
Note, however, that (like you) I still think it's irrelevant, but maybe it can be justified, particularly if we're trying to nurture a new user?

I'd like to read what you think about all this.
Regards, Pdfpdf 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your concerns about the new user but I think if we send him/her a message, they'll understand. I mean, the article is geared towards the musical family...I could understand if Matthew was one of the Winans kids but he's their third cousin or something like that. Honestly, he just isnt pertinent to the article. As for the NPOV statement, the main problem were statements like "his love and passion is basketball" which make it sound more like an advertisement. Granted, this only occured once or twice but nonetheless its there. Also, theres way too much information on him here, more than the actual Winans family are given (granted, many of them have their own pages). Why dont we just make Matthew his own page and then under the trivia section say "The Winans are cousins of basketball player Matthew Winans". I think thats the best compromise...what do you think? Best wishes! Jgcarter 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. (Conversations are a lot easier when everyone agrees with each other, aren't they!) Yes, sending him/her a message would be a good approach. (Though perhaps someone should "Welcome" him/her first? The talk page is still a red link!) Yes, Matthew is irrelevant to this page. On the NPOV, fair enough. Thanks. And yes, there is way too much data. (Don't know if I'd class it as information yet!)

In theory, I like the "separate page" plan. My only problem is, is Matthew sufficiently notable to merit his own page? Cheers, Pdfpdf 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's way past bed-time here (2am). I've got to get up at 7am and take the kids to sport. I'll continue the conversation in about 8 hours. Pdfpdf 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its so good when we just all agree and compromise :-). Yeah, it probably would be a good idea to leave a welcome thing on the talk page and then remove the useless info. I mean, you're right, he doesnt merit his own page...I think just saying that they're related to him is enough. I'm actually packing to go away for the weekend so I'll talk to you then. Have a nice day! Jgcarter 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's turning into a beautiful day here, thanks. The trees are in blossom and there's a touch of spring in the air, even though, technically, it's still winter. It's nice to feel the warm sun on your back.
I hope you enjoyed your weekend away.

Rather than completely deleting Mastariale21's hard work, I'll look into the viabilitly of incorporating it into the Las Vegas Stars (basketball team) page; that way we can sort-of-redirect interested parties to a more relevant page without throwing the work away. It will have the added advantage of showing Mastariale21 all sorts of things about how WP works, but give a positive solution rather than a negative one. I had in mind something like:
Basketballer Matthew Winans, the son of Mary and Norman Winans, is a second cousin of David "Pop" Winans. (Norman Winans is a cousin of Pop Winans.)
However, to be truthful, I'd rather spend my time on music (where I have an interest and knowledge) than professional minor league basketball (where I have negative interest and even less knowledge. (Can you have negative knowledge, or is the minimum zero?)).

Well, I'm off to enjoy some of this beautiful warm sunshine. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're enjoying the sunshine...its rather cool here but the temperature is expected to go up tomorrow. As for the info, I realize the hard work this editor did but Im just not sure where we could (appropriately) fit this. Anyways, I gotta run...talk to you later! Jgcarter 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alvin Love III

Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Alvin III information.
However, it does make me wonder why he's called Alvin Winans. (i.e. Why isn't he using his father's surname? Perhaps "Alvin Winans" is his "stage name" because his "real" name doesn't have the same obvious links to gospel music? Or maybe he's the product of a relationship rather than a marriage, and hence that's why he uses her name. I'll have to do some looking around.)
Also, I wonder if Alvin Snr, Alvin Jr and/or Alvin II ever existed, and if so, who they were.
In any case, it sounds like he should also be mentioned on the Winans family page ... Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, stupid me...his name is Alvin Love the third. I got so used to saying Winans that I did it by default. Both of her kids, Alvin and Ashley, have the same dad...it was my mistake :D. Jgcarter 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I somehow managed to get myself thoroughly confused, and probably got you confused too.

I initially read your posting on my page as Alvin Winans III. Re-reading it now I see it says nothing of the sort!!

Let's see if I've got it right this time:

• There's no such person as Albert Alvin Winans III.
• CeCe's husband is Alvin Love, and their son is Alvin Love III

Right?

(So what happened to Alvin Love Jr/Alvin Love II ??) Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no Albert Winans/Love...that was a typo. Yes, CeCe married Alvin II and her son is Alvin III. So Alvin I must be CeCe's father in-law. Jgcarter 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Murphy's Law prevails! Ambiguity and confusion reign supreme!! I made yet another error!!!

Try again:

• There's no such person as Alvin Winans III.
• CeCe's husband is Alvin Love II, and their son is Alvin Love III.

Have I got it right this time? Pdfpdf 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Winans - "Case Closed"?

Yes, that's MUCH better, isn't it!! I really like the fact that you got it down to under one line, and I really hope that's the end of it! Best Wishes, Pdfpdf 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I think its the perfect compromise :-) Jgcarter 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alvin Love III

Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, stupid me...his name is Alvin Love the third. I got so used to saying Winans that I did it by default. Both of her kids, Alvin and Ashley, have the same dad...it was my mistake :D. Jgcarter 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no Albert Winans/Love...that was a typo. Yes, CeCe married Alvin II and her son is Alvin III. So Alvin I must be CeCe's father in-law. Jgcarter 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessing biographies

First off, its great to hear from you - it looks like you've been busy. Second, yes, you've got it right. Anyone can assess any article for any WikiProject, although its mildly discouraged. I've written a couple dozen biographies of folks now, and I still remember that my first reaction to the rating was similar to yours, something to the effect of "WTF?!?" But then I learned that each WikiProject is responsible for assessing their own related articles. The idea behind the system is to give everyone a standard for developing articles they have common interest in. Here's WikiProject Biography's page on assessment if you're interested. Oh, and don't take the ratings personally - they're supposed to reflect the quality of the article, which I've discovered has a lot to do with the length as much as the prose or information presented therein. A "B" rating means the article is on its way. Keep in touch. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: G'Day

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing lol. I guess we both had different ideas in our heads...who knew that one little edit could spawn several edits in one day? lol Take care! Jgcarter 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

African Americans in Omaha

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. Its that kind of direct feedback that it seems like few people on WP are capable of giving. I've reworded the lead with your considerations in mind, and created an alphabetically-ordered table out of the notable people. Please, share your insights anytime. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are great. I truly appreciate what you've done for the article - cool. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)