Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lesser Cartographies: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:11, 7 March 2014 editLesser Cartographies (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,573 edits Harp Twins: Several responses← Previous edit Revision as of 22:03, 7 March 2014 edit undoDontreader (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,782 edits Harp TwinsNext edit →
Line 105: Line 105:


::]: (a) Thanks. (b) Agreed. (c) Where there's not much in the way of reliable sources, we (myself emphatically included) have a tendency to write monographs instead of encyclopedia articles. Not necessarily a bad thing—we have some great monographs here—but it can lead to editors working at cross-purposes. (d) ] is frustrated because he doesn't yet have the tools to accomplish what he wants to accomplish but is still unwilling to back down. So he's cycles through what he knows (I see he's asked you to be banned again) hoping that it will work this time around. He is doing better: pointing to GAs and FAs is a huge improvement over where he was five months ago. Once you see things from his point of view, though, it's hard to feel insulted, even when he's trying to do exactly that. ] (]) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC) ::]: (a) Thanks. (b) Agreed. (c) Where there's not much in the way of reliable sources, we (myself emphatically included) have a tendency to write monographs instead of encyclopedia articles. Not necessarily a bad thing—we have some great monographs here—but it can lead to editors working at cross-purposes. (d) ] is frustrated because he doesn't yet have the tools to accomplish what he wants to accomplish but is still unwilling to back down. So he's cycles through what he knows (I see he's asked you to be banned again) hoping that it will work this time around. He is doing better: pointing to GAs and FAs is a huge improvement over where he was five months ago. Once you see things from his point of view, though, it's hard to feel insulted, even when he's trying to do exactly that. ] (]) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:::{{U|Lesser Cartographies}},

:::The link you provided when you replaced the CD Baby links DOES NOT support the content properly. If you have "demonstrated that track listings do not need citations", then why don't you go to ] and see if they will let you remove the Amazon links? That's a Good Article, mind you. That article received Good Article status from an administrator who thoroughly reviewed it, yet he/she saw no need to remove those links. And recently a top Misplaced Pages editor, GoingBatty, asked me to provide links to support the dates of the Single releases section. You can find that on the talkpage of the Kitt article, and you'll see my reply on his own talkpage. Yet you think you know better! And you keep on claiming that I'm so ignorant here! Very well, then. Back it up if you are right. All I'm asking for from you (the experienced editor, in contrast with me, a Misplaced Pages peasant), is that you take your brilliant logic to ONE article and see if your superior intellect works there! If you can get those Amazon links removed from Katy Perry's song "Roar", then your credibility will be reestablished, and you will cease to look like you are helping Duff have his way. Duff removed the links (twice), was reverted by a Misplaced Pages ADMINISTRATOR each time (who claimed the links should remain there to support content), yet you overruled him! You are a very confident man, I see! I have decided to accept your changes, but since you are so confident, knowledgeable and bright, and since you have nothing personal against me or the Harp Twins, I trust you will not object to attempting to achieve the same results with the Roar article. In fact, why don't you team up with Duff to speed things up?! You'll surely get the job done in NO TIME!!! And that request is not insulting. What's wrong with you? Can't a man ask for fairness??? ] (]) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == A barnstar for you! ==

Revision as of 22:03, 7 March 2014

  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
This is Lesser Cartographies's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Archiving icon
Archives

1



This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A page you started (The News Letter of the LXIVmos) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The News Letter of the LXIVmos, Lesser Cartographies!

Misplaced Pages editor Slashme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Fascinating article!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Harp Twins

BG White has repeatedly violated an understanding that you have helped broker. Instead of edit warring both myself and Dontreader were to discuss any changes to the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page with yourself and changes would be made by you. The agreement did not include Dontreader whining to BG White and BG White kowtowing to his every whim. BG White has been repeatedly introducing linkspam into said page. attempt to raise the issue with BG White was met by silence. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Insulting someone usually leads to silence. Agreement was to not to edit the page and instead to discuss on my or Lesser's talk page. You already said you don't have to abide by that. Dontreader has been coming to both Lesser and me as per the agreement. He has not edited the page. I've have told Dontreader no and yes to things he has proposed. Links in question are sourcing that there was an album released and when it was released. This is permitted and unfortunately, Amazon iTunes seems to be the ones people choose. This is why I added it. I already asked if you had a better link and so far have been ignored.
Remember, I issued you both warnings not to edit war over the Kitt page. I warned the next time I would block both of you. So far you have thrown the agreement out, not civilly discussed, reverted and thrown insults at every change.
Lesser has been on a Wikibreak for a bit. When he returns, if he want to decide to remove, keep or change links, that is fine by me. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Duff, Bg: I'll take a look. Unlikely I'll decide anything for a least a day, probably two. Probably best to leave things alone until then. I'll be in touch. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies. This is a Featured Article, and it has several iTunes and Amazon links in the Release history section to support content. Please notify Duff about this. Unless he is willing to wage war (successfully) to remove "shop" links from every Featured and Good article on Misplaced Pages, there is absolutely no justification for him to insist on removing the CDBaby links from the Kitt page. Have a nice day... Dontreader (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Don: As to the Madonna article, this site is a far more reliable (and complete) source than amazon. As to justification for removing certain commercial links, I can think of several, but WP:LINKSTOAVOID is sufficient ("Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"). Here's a better argument: if the information you're trying to cite can only be found on pages selling the product, that information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
Duff: I don't want to work with someone who yells "hypocrite" at the first (or second, or fifth) sign of a misunderstanding. Not only was that uncivil, it was counterproductive: you've removed any incentive for Bgw to come around to your point of view, and you've made me very reluctant to agree with you and be seen as rewarding your behavior. Your actions are making it more difficult for me to remove links that we both agree shouldn't be there. Please don't do that again.
Bgw: Thanks for stepping in during my absence. That was the right thing to do. Thanks for the "remove, keep or change links", and I'm happy to reciprocate. I think you've proposed the best solution: replace those links with better ones. Until I can find something better, I don't see any harm in leaving the article as-is.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Lesser Cartographies. However, although the Madonna site that you provided is more complete than Amazon or other shops, I fail to see why it is reliable after doing some research; that site is run by a Czech fan who doesn't even provide a full name, and using what appears to be a free blog service from the Czech Republic. I don't see why that information should be considered accurate or reliable (even if it might have correct information). From the Misplaced Pages article concerning links that should be avoided, we also read the following:
"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for people.)"
Honza is not a recognized authority, and this server seems intended for creating free blogs or personal pages. Also, from the quote "if the information you're trying to cite can only be found on pages selling the product, that information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." I must emphasize probably and I must remind you that multiple Featured Articles about music have shop links. Admittedly it's not an ideal situation. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To your first point: See

Wicke, Peter (2009). "Confessions on a dance floor: Das Lied als Industrieprodukt". In Leimgruber, Walter; Messerli, Alfred; Oehme, Karoline (eds.). Ewigi Liäbi: Singen bleibt populär. Germany: Waxmann/SVG. p. 92. ISBN 978-3-908122-85-2..

That looks like an impeccably recognized authority to me.

As to your second point: What percentage of featured articles have shop links? What percentage of those would be improved by citing reliable sources instead?

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now replaced the cdbaby cites with a cite to the twins' home page. The fact that the albums exist and were released on such-and-such a date is uncontroversial enough to use a less-reliable source. That leaves the track listings uncited, which was (unspoken) issue all along, right? So I'm guessing that since nobody else (not even the twins themselves) has bothered to reproduce the track listings, our choices come down to (a) leave the material uncited, (b) remove the material, (c) restore the link spam, or (d) find a better cite. I have enquires in progress for (d), and until I see how those pan out we'll stick with (a). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, what does that book and its author Peter Wicke have to do with the Czech guy Honza and his website? You said that website was much better, not a book.
Secondly, what matters is not the percentage of Featured Articles that have shop links. What matters is that there are Featured Articles with shop links. Would having different links be better? Yes, but that's the way it is currently. It's today's reality with Misplaced Pages. If you want to begin a crusade against the shop links, you have every right to do so. But until then, look, you said you saw no harm in keeping the Kitt article as it was, so why did you take out the links again, as Duff did? Dontreader (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
To your first point: you claimed that based on your "research", the madonnacollector website was not a recognized authority. It took me all of two google searches to find out that madonnacollector a recognized authority, and academics were the ones doing the recognizing. I didn't want you to have to take my word for it, so I provided the citation. As an aside, when someone goes to the trouble of giving you a citation, it's generally best to look it up before responding.
Now let's talk about citations for track listings. We have many, many examples of albums released by novelty cover bands. Here are a few examples. Let's see how they handle citing the track list.
Not one of these provide a citation to the track listing. That got me thinking as to why that might be. Could it be, perhaps, that the track listing of an album is similar to the table of contents in a book? That seems like a pretty solid comparison. We don't provide independent citations to tables of contents, and it looks like we don't provide independent citations for track listings, either.
Recall that the Madonna citation was for the release date. Well, we already have a non-shop-link cite for that, and that's what is now in the article.
So, I think we're done. Having looked at several other examples, the track listings can stay without any citation, and the release dates are cited sufficiently. We also got rid of the shop links. So I'm going to call this an unqualified success.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Lesser Cartographies, I'm sorry, but there is no way to reason with you. The Madonna link you provided was terrible. Why can't you accept that? It's one Czech guy with a collection of Madonna stuff who calls himself "Honza". No last name. And he asks for donations. Does that sound like a "reliable" source to you? A reader of a Misplaced Pages article is not supposed to have to perform two Google searches to verify that a link is reliable. You are simply cornering yourself. You should have admitted your mistake when I pointed it out to you.
And I could not care less about that list of bands that you provided. You cannot distract me, Lesser. I know two things:
1) After saying "Until I can find something better, I don't see any harm in leaving the article as-is.", you quickly changed it and replaced the links with a new link that DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENT. Your attempts at obfuscation do not work with me. All you did was please Duff. Period.
2) Let me repeat this: THERE ARE FEATURED ARTICLES OF MUSIC THAT HAVE SHOP LINKS. So you cannot apply a different standard to the Kitt article. PERIOD. You have NO WAY to justify pleasing Duff this time. All you are doing is coming across as someone who thinks he's far superior to me intellectually, cannot admit his mistakes, and can fool me with cheap tricks. Period. Revert that edit and let an administrator replace Bgwhite for a while. You have lost whatever credibility you had. Dontreader (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Don: To point 1, the article says:
  • "Harp Attack (December 2013). Harp covers of rock and metal songs."
The cited material says:
  • "In December of 2013, Camille and Kennerly released their much-anticipated first cover albums: Harp Attack - Featuring 14 of their most popular rock and metal arrangements, "
Now, take a deep breath and explain how the new cite "DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENT". (Recall that I just demonstrated that track listings do not need citations.)
As to your second point: it is obvious and uncontroversial that featured articles have shop links. Among the errors in your reasoning is drawing from this premise a conclusions that this article needs shop links. As to admitting I was wrong: I was. I thought we needed a citation for track listings, and I was keeping the CD Baby link for that purpose. Once I sat down and look at how other articles handle the question, I discovered I was in error and no such link was needed. So I changed the link to the twins' home page so we'd have a cite for the release date. All the content stays and we've removed a shop link that we didn't need.
From the point of view of improving the article, we're in better shape now than we were at the start of the week. From the point of view of winning and losing, Duff didn't get his preferred edit (removal of the link entirely) and neither did you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Four things.
a) Lesser, you are right, my accusation was not justified by the situation, I withdraw it.
b) The seems to be some question about sourcing the tracklisting. Tracklistings are more often than not non controversial. For such things primary sources are readily usable. If you really thinks it's needed, use the album or the Kitts discography (if they include that info). No need to support any retailer interests for this information.
c) I fail to see the need to precise details of the exact date of each minor variation in release dates in different territories. If release dates don't get mentions in independent reliable sources then is it really that significant. The use of lot's of shop links to "source" such a trivial details is galling and at times seems designed to promote sales. Many links to what is usually the one retailer goes against what Misplaced Pages should be. Misplaced Pages should not, such as in the case of 4 Minutes (Madonna song), be providing commercial advantage to Amazon or to any individual retailer.
d) The suggestion that any one volunteer here is obligated to "wage war" on articles specified by another is insult to everyone who helps here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Duff: (a) Thanks. (b) Agreed. (c) Where there's not much in the way of reliable sources, we (myself emphatically included) have a tendency to write monographs instead of encyclopedia articles. Not necessarily a bad thing—we have some great monographs here—but it can lead to editors working at cross-purposes. (d) Don is frustrated because he doesn't yet have the tools to accomplish what he wants to accomplish but is still unwilling to back down. So he's cycles through what he knows (I see he's asked you to be banned again) hoping that it will work this time around. He is doing better: pointing to GAs and FAs is a huge improvement over where he was five months ago. Once you see things from his point of view, though, it's hard to feel insulted, even when he's trying to do exactly that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Lesser Cartographies,
The link you provided when you replaced the CD Baby links DOES NOT support the content properly. If you have "demonstrated that track listings do not need citations", then why don't you go to Roar (song) and see if they will let you remove the Amazon links? That's a Good Article, mind you. That article received Good Article status from an administrator who thoroughly reviewed it, yet he/she saw no need to remove those links. And recently a top Misplaced Pages editor, GoingBatty, asked me to provide links to support the dates of the Single releases section. You can find that on the talkpage of the Kitt article, and you'll see my reply on his own talkpage. Yet you think you know better! And you keep on claiming that I'm so ignorant here! Very well, then. Back it up if you are right. All I'm asking for from you (the experienced editor, in contrast with me, a Misplaced Pages peasant), is that you take your brilliant logic to ONE article and see if your superior intellect works there! If you can get those Amazon links removed from Katy Perry's song "Roar", then your credibility will be reestablished, and you will cease to look like you are helping Duff have his way. Duff removed the links (twice), was reverted by a Misplaced Pages ADMINISTRATOR each time (who claimed the links should remain there to support content), yet you overruled him! You are a very confident man, I see! I have decided to accept your changes, but since you are so confident, knowledgeable and bright, and since you have nothing personal against me or the Harp Twins, I trust you will not object to attempting to achieve the same results with the Roar article. In fact, why don't you team up with Duff to speed things up?! You'll surely get the job done in NO TIME!!! And that request is not insulting. What's wrong with you? Can't a man ask for fairness??? Dontreader (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your efforts in assessing a question at the Teahouse based on the merits of the topic... a good assessment and very valuable. Your feedback makes a difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)