User:Werldwayd/Archive-Favorites

This is strictly a personal page for Werldwayd for follow-up on articles I am developing for follow up and eventual publication in Wikipedia Main

This is an archive of Werldwayd talk messages. My current talk page is here: User talk:Werldwayd. Please leave messages only on that page.

My greeting to the world
Hello - Salut - ¡Hola - Olá - Ciao Hallo - Hallå - Hej - Hujambo - Merhaba - Ahoj - Bok - Chào - Pozdravljeni 你好 -  こんにちは  -안녕하세요  - नमस्ते - வணக்கம் здрасти - Здраво - Γεια σας  -שלום - Բարև - مرحبا -  سلام-  خوش

My dedication of a song to the world
A dedication of a song and lyrics as a welcome word to all those who visit this page [ ə dedıkeyṣən αv ə song ɑnd lırıks ɑz ə welkəm wərd tu ol doz hu vızıt dis peyc ] "I Wish For You the World" "ɑy wıṣ for yu də wərld" (by The Games Makers Choir feat. Alistair Griffin) For a wider selection, Click here

Personal messages about Wikipedia experience as editor
Here my absolute personal favorites, contributions that have effected me tremendously **Actually I was the one who changed it from "Arrest and prosecution" to "Personal life". But I disagree that it was to try to "water it down" or "sugar coatng" him. I think an artist has basically two lives: his artistic life or musical career, if you want, and his "personal life" meaning all the rest that has nothing to do with his music (family, educaton, origins, girl friends, run ins with the law, financial problems etc). From that stand point, the term "personal life" is so much more representative and neutral language, whereas "arrest and prosecution" sounds so aggressive and immediately desposes one to be so much against this guy and simply concentrate on the consequences of a 5-minute incident, because this is what it does the way it looks now, a 5-minute incident, an irrelevant small part of an artist's life who has spent thousands upon thousands of hours of time effort and innovation and creativity and a lot of compassion to help striving artists to just concentrate on a 5-minute incident done when he was caught in the circumstance and obviously regrets by now. True, it had a catastrophic effect on the victim John Osnes that lost his life, but things happen. In any case, we should keep what is essential essential. People come in here mostly to know about his music. The fact of the matter is, I want people to read about David Jassy like this great talented artist who in a matter of few seconds of misjudgement "screwed up" his artistic life, not as some thug who goes on murdering people, and oh yes, he had done some music on the side. Staying on this page has made me hugely uncomfortable as you wouldn't believe. It has been tasking on my spirit and quite a heavy burden on my soul. It has effected me heavily and I dread whenever I return to it. It is just too much for me. Yet I cannot leave it if I try. This is because I have developed a huge liking to almost everything David Jassy did musically from day one. I think he has great talent and utter charisma. So I stay... (i have done 116 edits to it and the next in line has just 39... Even writing right now has made me so sad and I don't have a desire of taking part in any further discussions. I 'll just read and take in what other colleagues say... that's all. Yes, I am hugely interested on what the page turns like). I stay to keep the right balance in the article. I didn't even know about him before the incident, but yet by now I have listened to hundreds and hundreds of times to his works with the Navigators, with Darin who I was introduced simply because of Jassy's work, and every day I discover new stuff that is truly impressive, if not incredible... and I am intent on trying to reflect this on the page as much as possible, because he does need a break and compassion. And he will be hopefully be given the chance to pursue a sort of a musical career even in jail. I think this is possible and he can become a huge source of inspiration to so many, because he is such a charismatic guy that effects people he touches. He has proven it in the free world, now he can prove it behind bars as well and become this super support and uplifting character to others inside who need such a talented motivated guy. And yes I now adore his work. In time you will realize the term "Personal life" is by far better than the pre-judgmental "Arrest and prosecution". Having said that, I am not in favour of deleting the section like "Ifyousayso" is doing. I have a feeling this gentleman is from the organization or business concern that David Jassy runs, or he is a close family relative or an acquaintance, a real close person. I admire his dedication to defend his friend or business partner or whatever, I am sure he is closely related to David Jassy (it is so obvious) and I sympathize, but this is not the way of editing Wikipedia pages. I admire Ifyousayso for being courageous and determined. But it is counter-productive. The account is, I believe, simply created to protect his friend in his toughest time, that's all. If I were him, I would improve on presentations to his artistic aspects on the page. And yes, correct some legal inaccuracies which he is doing I feel trying to point out to us over and over, emphasizing technical legal aspects of the case, and that we were inaccurate in reporting it. But as I said, concentrating on his music aspect and improving on it will be far better. This way he would have done something good to improve the page and better present his proper artistic image. werldwayd (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:David Jassy

**Truly moved by "In Christ Alone": Launching this page "In Christ Alone" was truly taxing on me both physically and emotionally. Now I read the article back after having worked hours and hours on it throughout the night and till sunlight today and I see how worthwhile Wikipedia is as a project and as a site when it also has place for such an immensely beautiful song I knew nothing about just two days ago... It is just so astonishing this Keith Getty/Stuart Townend hymn has been around since 2001 and no page was consecrated to it in Wikipedia until today. I just heard the song yesterday for the first time ever in my life (and I listen to thousands and thousands of songs... but apparently not this one until yesterday that is). The version that introduced me to the song was by Adam Young of Owl City and I read what he wrote in his blog about the recording process. He said: "Last night I probably spent more time actually crying at the piano than I did recording it. Such are the secret confessions of a shy boy from Minnesota"... Well "Today I probably spent more time actually crying on my keyboard than I did on preparing the article. Such are the secret confessions of a shy Wikipedia guy"... After tens of versions and more than a hundred listens while working on the article and researching, it still touches me immensely and uplifts my spirits... As I said to myself when I was also building up the page for "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" by Rick Founds that anybody that has anything to do with Founds' song will be moved and blessed... I had heard the hymn while I was doing some research on general music from the African continent and I heard a version by a South African gospel singer Jonathan Butler. ... With my hearing of "In Christ Alone" I had the same feeling about it as well... Anybody to do anything whatsoever with this song, will be moved and blessed... listening to it, reading about it, reviewing it or adding to it here in the article page. werldwayd (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:In Christ Alone
 * Based on "In Christ Alone", now I have also created a page for the hymn "My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less" by Edward Mote, based on hearing "Solid Rock" interpreted by Travis Cottrell as a medley during his rendition of "In Christ Alone". So more blessings from a song that means so much to me. werldwayd (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk:Clear the Stage

Launching this page "Clear the Stage" was truly inspirational and emotionally taxing. I had very similar experience when I launched the page for "In Christ Alone". I do launch many new pages on Wikipedia, but on very special occasions, I see how worthwhile Wikipedia is as a project and as a site when it also has place for such an immensely beautiful song I knew nothing about just a day earlier... It is just so astonishing this Ross King composition has been around since 2002 and no page was consecrated to it. I just heard the song yesterday for the first time ever in my life (and I listen to thousands and thousands of songs... but apparently not this one). The version that introduced me to the song was by Jimmy Needham, an artist I had never heard about. But as I was updating Wikipedia with new releases from Sverigetopplistan, the Swedish Albums Charts, I noticed the album Clear the Stage charting at #59 and I was just taken by the immensity of this song as done by Needham. I also listened with great interest to what Jimmy Needham was saying about the song as a personal testimony that "it's just one of those songs that doesn't permit you to hear it and then be the same after that and it just radically changed how I saw life". He adds: "It is probably the most impactful song I have ever heard in my life". I couldn't agree more. After hearing many versions of this song, it still touches me immensely... I was also building up the page for "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" by Rick Founds and I said to myself at the time that anybody that has anything to do with Founds' song will be moved and blessed... I had heard the version by Jonathan Butler. I had the same feeling with "In Christ Alone" after hearing the version by Owl City's Adam Young ... and so for "My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less" a Christian hymn written by Edward Mote and the associated hymn "Solid Rock". So I reiterate here that anybody to do anything whatsoever with this song "Clear the Stage", will be moved and blessed... listening to it, reading about it, reviewing it or adding to it here in the article page. werldwayd (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

**Notability: Until last week I had no notion whatsoever of this organization. I was restructuring the page for Scooter Braun, a very badly kept page. While improving on that page, I stumbled on a passing reference about his support of a charity by Adam Braun, his brother, which was this charity Pencils of Promise. My quick research into it just opened an amazing world that impressed me at no end and brightened and lifted my soul. Of utmost effect on me initially was this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo13am3Hra4 Then I referred to the page of the charity here and I found the article so lacking and badly maintained I had to work on the page improving on its content and adding adequate references to avoid the "notability" concerns there for three years now. With the new edits, and references, I have now removed that note. This article has also completely changed my pre-conceptions and judgemental attitude and bias about Justin Bieber to which I publicly admit now. Thanks to this charity, I have now deserved my own "pencil" I wished for after meeting Adam's and Scooter's testimonies and I couldn't be prouder and richer for it. And suddenly it dawned on me how important education was through editing in Wikipedia (for readers yes, but more importantly for the contributing editors involved). Wikipedia is the ultimate pencil for promises we promise ourselves if we know how to use the space and opportunities Wikipedia provides to all of us, if we care enough. werldwayd (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Pencils of Promise

**Restoration of most of the information with references I looked over most the materials deleted (mostly added by Spacecowboi) and found almost all of what was added plausible. So I did some research and I found it very accurate in every detail, but it just needed verification and some research to provide references, which I didn't mind to do. Actually I have simply never ever heard of this band Then Jerico before nor of its vocalist Mark Shaw. But the name Then Jerico fascinated me. So did Shaw's personality and his experiences. So this was a true discovery for me as I listened to a lot of their stuff all the while doing research online and what I read and what I heard of their output continued to amaze me at no end... and how good they were... A word of thanks to colleague GorgeCustersSabre to ask a lending hand and providing an opportunity to get to know this act closer... This was absolutely a great pleasure for me in many ways... The lesson I draw from this very sad episode of deletions and suspensions of editing rights is that being patient and not getting angry or personal really pays well, fiery remarks never help. Plus having a healthy amount of curiosity and will to learn goes a long way, and that you do need the technique to add the materials to Wikipedia. It's not just what you add, but how you proceed adding it... There is a procedure we need to abide by... So now I am richer for it and Wikipedia readers have a more extensive and comprehensive coverage to read about this excellent band. werldwayd (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) **In remembrance: I was editing the page of Spanish singer José Galisteo and just going through history of the page, discovered that it was established by User:Jeffpw on 19 August 2007. The page had been left for a long time with no updates, but now with a new release by Galisteo in 2013 called "Wish", I revamped the page adding some info. But clearly most of the work had been already done by Jeffpw (actually Jeff Woloson) when Galisteo enjoyed most popularity with his album Remember. How appropriate to have an album with such a title... So I come here to thank Jeff Woloson for the great work he did in Wikipedia. Whatever work we leave behind comes as a testimony of what we tried to offer to fellow men and that's what Jeff did in his Wikipedia articles. werldwayd (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Then Jerico
 * User_talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam

**Congratulations for being featured article in English Wikipedia: Priyanka Chopra page was chosen as August 14, 2013's featured article in English Wikipedia. This is a landmark for this page and for so many who have worked hard to reach this goal. So it is time to celebrate!!! Here is Cliff Richard in "Congratulations". See Eurovision live performance. Cliff Richard is an international artist who was born in Lucknow, India actually, so fitting to the occasion. My secret pleasure out of all this is that both "In My City" and "Exotic" appear in the framed article on main Wikipedia page. It was me who added a brand new "Discography" section which I proudly established putting "In My City" there (I love Priyanka through this song actually.. and I just love RedOne's work in the song), and time and again I found it deleted as being a "one song" section. Then one day, it magically became a permanent part of the page thanks to "Exotic".. Now I notice the songs are mentioned in the text chosen for main Wikipedia page right there in the last sentence. Wow. It made it to the main page for everybody to see and discover... By the way, is there a way in which today's English Wikipedia main page is saved and a frozen picture of the page is put here in talk page just for good memories for a job well done? (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Priyanka Chopra


 * User talk:BEST STAR 907

In response to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutvik Oza and after administartor and editor DGG wrote: "As an experienced administrator here, I re-reviewed the sequence of reviews on this article. I think it only fair to tell you that I do not think we are ever likely to accept it. If by chance some editor moved it into mainspace, it would be immediately nominated for AfD, and certainly deleted. As others have commented, the career is the example of ONEEVENT that we do not consider appropriate for an encyclopedia. The most rational thing for you to do at this point is to place at the top of the AfC a line reading : , and it will be quickly deleted.  When the individual becomes later in his career actually notable , and you have the necessary material, then try again. ( talk ) 04:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC), I responded to BEST STAR 907:

I've also taken a look on your presentations for a Rutvik Oza article. Personally I am fascinated by the work he has done and he thrills me with his work in math, in film, in activism and in politics. I also benefited greatly from some of the references you provided about him. I think if you concentrate for example on Oza's scriptwriting aspect, after all he worked on a number of relevant films, it does save the article from the "One Event" argument. A brief checking of the name just shows a great number of films Rutvik Oza was in. That section can be developed further to highlight his work in films. I made a research on the name and just in English Wikipedia, you come up with at least ten mentions (surely an indication of notability in films) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Rutvik+Oza. I also note that you mention for example that he was a co-winner with Anurag Kashyap and Vikramaditya Motwane on the film Udaan. See Filmfare Award for Best Screenplay. One more suggestion and please, don't take this as a patronizing remark. I am not trying to be anyway... I don't know if you can edit in Hindi. Or if not, if you can actually collaborate with someone who does have knowledge editing in Hindi. We do have a Hindi Wikipedia https://hi.wikipedia.org/. I tried to search for ऋत्विक ओझा on Hindi Wikipedia and ended up with nothing there. There must be a huge interest for a Rutvik Oza article in Hindi (I am just assuming there is no Hindi language article till now). It may not be as widespread as English Wikipedia, but there is a potential of readers in tens of millions to a Hindi Wikipedia and they are surely interested in Indian talents as Oza is. The same can be achieved with other Indian language pages as well including one in Gujarati, language of his home state. Meanwhile for the English language article, keep adding to the article in your own user page area for a future launching when there are new media coverage as per comments of our various editors or he wins prizes in mathematics or does further work to increase his notability. Many thanks for introducing this gentleman to us. I for one am richer for it thanks to Wikipedia and thanks to valuable contributions like yours. werldwayd (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

On proposal for deletion of Doe B just three days after his death and i day after I created the article.
 * Articles for deletion/Doe B

This is a notable artist beyond the immediate tragic news. User talk:STATicVapor indicates a great number of references that will reinforce the artistic notability. In any case, I am clearly not an advocate of speedy actions in such cases. For me utility and usefulness has precedence for now. 12,387 people visited the page two days ago and 12,512 just yesterday. There may be well over a 100,000 who will check this very page in just a few days to check primarily about his career. About the circumstances of death, they are flooded and have "embarass de choix". Pragmatism rules for now. What colleague User:Tom Danson is proposing is that we turn away tens of thousands of readers, or at best forward them to the 2-liner we have on Grand Hustle Records where Doe B is tucked in way in the bottom with no mention of his career... Is this the right time to propose deleting an article? I can understand it if this move was proposed say in a month or better two months down the road, and proposal discussed in calmer circumstances. But what do we achieve by putting forth some "technicality" and delete it right now? I offered the alternative that readers that habitually use Wikipedia in such moments and rely on it (rather than some newspaper or news agency item that will be only about the shooting incident). Our article, unlike most articles in other current media, is giving importance to presenting a balanced article that gives quite extensive coverage on Doe B's music career, the very thought in my mind when I researched and created the article. So this page has that "extra" offer others are not usually providing. That's the reason many basically come to Wikipedia in such times for their info. Furthermore the record company has clearly said it has tens of recordings by this artist and they will release them very soon, probably by next week or two. And my hunch is that it will chart significantly in the States creating more notability posthumously. Yes, I know this is speculative, but is an educated guess... All I'm saying, give the article a chance, for now. "Timing is of essence" here in this case. Flexibility and pragmatism rule rather than dogma and rigid regulations. In a month or two, the matter can be looked over with less consequence, and less controversy and adversity. Or else what we are saying in practical terms to all the interested people is that they should go and search elsewhere.


 * [|Talk:Harry Connick, Jr.]

(This page mentioned by Munfarid Zaidi on inaugural episode of American Idol)

At the very end of the first episode of season 13 of American Idol, there was a sequence of how many of the participants don't even know who the "third judge" (Harry Connick, Jr.) is. Then we were introduced to a contestant from Texas of Pakistani origin Munfarid Zaidi, a 19 year old fan, who was visibly star-struck by Harry Connick, Jr. and said: "I read your Wikipedia page every day before going to sleep" which prompted Harry to respond: "You know who I am!" before running over and picking Munfarid Zaidi up cradling him and letting him sing a verse or two in his arms.... The two other judges Keith Urban and Jennifer Lopez were just giggling as Harry was heard saying "Give him his ticket". "Why was he cradling you?" Ryan Seacrest asked. "Because I love him" the 19-year-old from Texas said. Here's the report. Another report about this in London's Daily Mail. So here's to all contributors to this page... And here's to our hero Munfarid who I sincerely hope reads the Wikipedia talk page of Harry Connick, Jr. just as well. We want to let you know you made us all so happy and we are just praying that you go ahead as far as possible in the contest... But seriously.... Wikipedia is getting real mainstream with so many checking it and referring to it. werldwayd (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [|Articles for deletion/Jaap_Reesema]

On occasion of a delete request for Jaap Reesema, my correspondence with requesting colleague Launchballer ... On deletes and saves / Thanks for withdrawing the request for deletion on Jaap Reesema. I didn't want to mention this on the Jaap Reesema page but I can mention it to you in all transparency. Creating articles and also saving of articles from deletion is a special kick of adrenaline and intense satisfaction for an editor like me. It also gives this odd sense of pride of having launched an article, or saved an article from actually disintegrating in front of your eyes... For me, when you find an individual artist that you actually discover out of the blue and develop a liking to him, this guy Jaap Reesema as a case, you listen to his songs and watch his videos and see all the effort he has put it and all the goodness he is trying in his little way to spread around as far as he can, then you realize that there are hundreds of millions of people in the world who could have passed the same experience but none bothered to spend a few minutes and write an article about him or her, out of apathy or whatever, then you feel you are the single individual of those 6 billion population who cared enough and gave some time to a deserving little known artist. It truly becomes your baby for your own satisfaction... as the guy barely famous in his little odd country gets an international platform now with Wikipedia. That's why I hardly bother with big artists everybody is writing about, don't even read their pages, I just stick to the small guys I got to know. So when confronted by a deletion request, you are suddenly let down and realize your efforts, despite all, are on the wake of being wasted and now that guy you came to appreciate will go to oblivion yet again, then, your adrenaline shot works in you to give yet more time and effort to save it once more as you fervently search for more references and discover more things about the guy in process. That's why I joined Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and that's also why I rarely partake in launching deletion requests myself unless the article is so grotesque it isn't worthy at all or its just vandalism or a practical joke... But my rule of thumb is, regardless of how bad an article is, check the videos, even if it is in a language you know nothing about, even if you cannot even pronounce the name of the artist, find the lyrics, put them in a translation machine, check the meanings, join in as much as you can and learn a few words in that language, check the literature, try to know more about the guy, try to discover, and if you like him or her, and you like what he has done, the article does reserve an effort to improve rather than delete. Don't get me wrong, I don't get pissed off by colleagues who ask for deletions, they are trying to do well in their own way, as deletion requests sometimes kickstart a worthwhile process of improving an article, but if I can improve without having to delete, so much the better... In any way, thanks for your efforts. In that spirit, here are a couple of Jaap Reesema songs "Mijn Wereld Op Z'n Kop" "Ooit Komt Nooit Meer" and his number 1 cover "Don't Stop Believin'" plus a song I dedicate to everyone I correspond to - my slogan and the spirit I edit in: "I Wish For You The World" thus my name werldwayd werldwayd (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * |Articles for deletion/Afshin (singer)

On occasion of colleagues proposing deletion of article. Keep: Afshin is a long-running artist with 6 albums in more than 13 years, tens of music videos and hundreds of concerts in tens of countries and yes in Farsi. Asking for a major record label from such artists is truly excessive. As if we want to delete a priori with not much thought put in our decision... Do we really need Universal, Sony and Warner for ethnic artists to pass them? ParsiVideos Afshin is associated with is one of the biggest music producers in Iranian diasporan music with access to hundreds of websites and tens of radio and TV stations and ethnic international satellite now 24 on 24. With your run-of-the-mill local struggling artists who put their output, these ethnic diaspora artists are veritable international artists in their own right. Afshin is very well-known in Iranian ethnic communities not only in his home country Germany, but in Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, US, Australia, the Middle East, UAE and Gulf as well as in Iran and central Asian countries with multiple appearances on satellite television. Sadly English Wikipedia seems to be biased against true ethnic stars. As soon as we see some ethnic name, or album titles we can't read or media articles we don't understand, suddenly deletion requests follow. It seems these artists and their articles cannot win... add to it the inexperience of the contributors who propose these articles on them. Iranian diaspora artists are already persecuted by the Iranian regime who tries to obliterate their pop and dance materials and forbid its spread, whereas songs of artists like Afshin are an outlet for Iranian western-oriented youth inside Iran who take their Wikipedia very seriously and would be insensed by your suggestion as an indirect aid to the regime they despise. If you have just 5 -6 minutes check this video for example that created so much controversy Afshin's "Dokhtar Shirazi". These artists also play a role in trying to preserve the ethnic culture and language in diaspora youth that is forgetting the language albeit with modern western pop and dance music which even traditionalists despise and want to go away.... What we are doing is helping such process by deleting everything that comes our way from ethnics. It is high time rules other than applied for English language artists is applied for non-English diaspora artists in non-English languages in English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not for English language artists but all international artists in all languages and a great extra supplement to language Wikipedias. werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Knowing" someone through Wikipedia
 * |Article in Jimbo Wales page on Mister You

I came across this pretty song by a Moroccan French artist Mister You. He read some remarks about himself on Wikipedia after a turbulent past and run-ins with the police and he protests how this effected his relationship with his love. Accused of many criminal activities, he protests in his song "À toi" (meaning "To you") (See music video): "Laisse moi t'enlacer, habi laisse moi t'embrasser / Laisse moi te montrer à quelle point je suis un mec censé / Qu j'ai envie de me caser, non, ne te fie pas à mon casier / Et n'écoute pas les médias / Qui te font croire que je suis un gobeur / qui me connaissent que grâce à Wikipédia!" Rough translation of this part of the lyrics: "Let me kiss you and embrace you / Let me show you how a considerate man I am / I want to squeeze you / Don't believe in my [criminal] file / And don't listen to the media / That made you believe I was a druggie / that just know me [thanks] to Wikipedia " - The precious "Wikipedia reference" is at 1:21 of the video... It just shows personal life sections on our various musical artist pages are well read and considered as given truths. LOL (August 4, 2014) --

No response whatsoever to this cute remark celebrating mention of a page I had edited extensively in Wikipedia in a nice song... except for one editor who rushed in to remove all references to his past with justice.... Upon which I added a note in Mister You talk page as follows:

On 4 August I added this note on Jimbo Wales page (co-creator of Wikipedia) about mention of Mister You of his Wikipedia page in his song "A toi" Of course this "cute reference" about this particular page being mentioned in a song didn't interest any other Wikipedia colleague to come in to Jimbo's page and put a kind remark or two to pinpoint the humour behind this "Wikipedia quotation in a song".... why should they when they use all their energy to argue endlessly on poisonous subjects and create just misery in this lovely collaborative community of editors we call Wikipedians... But it however led one esteemed colleague Malerooster who didn't know the foggiest about Mister You all these years to suddenly rush in virtually minutes to check in the details of the article after my piece appearing (as a creator and big contributor to the page) and in a spree of edits remove almost anything and everything of his judicial case and run-ins with police. He used the reasoning of BLP that none of the facts were supported by references and as a "biography of a living person" (BLP) it should... just leaving some French language articles he couldn't read so he claims... as if with my near 190,000 edits, I couldn't have just added dozens and dozens of the necessary references he was asking for to make it compliant to Wikipedia's BLP rules. I had just spared the guy because I have developed quite a liking to his work, followed his saga, listened to tens of his songs in various phases of his career, checked his media interviews and shows, strongly supported the case of his release, and dutifully added timely updates of all his releases and chart appearances and generally his musical career... so why make life more complicated I had reasoned...

Other than that nobody really cared to see the relevance of Mister You mentioning this specific page (but in fairness, surely he must have read the French page and not this... But still...

So my cute happy little note to Jimbo Wales just cost the taking out of almost all the so-called "offending parts" because of Wikipedia's famous BLP. Now you know a new Wikipedia term, so be happier... Hope as it stands now, readers know more about this artist by knowing less about him. And no I will not reinstate the notes and won't add the necessary BLP references... For me I am just content international readers who may not be familiar with this French Moroccan artist at least have a way of reading about him in English language worldwide ... and that's the whole purpose after all, isn't it? So be a sports, go to Mister You's page, check his output, enjoy some of his recordings. Happy listening... even if it is in French


 * To which I had this answer from Malerooster (the editor had rushed in to remove most of what I had added, saying: "Hi Werldwayd, first off. I don't "claim" sh%t. I don't read French despite 4 years of taking it at an elite all boys prep school. That was a bizzillion years ago and I suck at languages, English included :). Next, near 190,000 edits is very very unimpressive, just saying. Next, absolutely no to that's the whole purpose after all, that is NOT the purpose of this project and is the exact reason why Wikipedia is a JOKE in academic circles."


 * Shows real camaraderie between Wikipedia coleagues doesn't it. Thanks for reminding me that 190,000 edits is very very unimpressive after your impressive rush to remove materials after you read a cute note from me on Jimbo Wales page.

The nagging issue of why exactly 95 theses of Martin Luther?
 * |Talk:The Ninety-Five Theses

Many edits have been done and reversed. But the nagging question remains. Why 95? The Wikipedia article doesn't clearly specify that there were 95 specific and distinct theses Luther proposed and the uniqueness of each of the 95 thesis on its own or else he wouldn't have put them in 95 thesis would he? He would have written one long thesis and called it "My thesis" for all I know. We are NOT asking for the COMPLETE TEXT to be put here, even if it is free domain. All we are asking is an understandable codification, a certain resumé of exactly what Luther was saying in his great moment of illumination, like Theses 1 to 6 of his 95 thesis deals with issue X, 7 to 15 with issue Y, Thesis 95 is a grand conclusion of thesis 1 to 94 combined etc... This article does not address this basic question. Why 95 and not 94 or 96 for example. Why precisely 95, not one more, not one less. AND WHAT ARE THEY, THESE 95 THESES? The article (thankfully) refers to one single thesis, the so-called Thesis 86, which poses the question: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?". Thank you for that, but this just wets our appetite for the other thesis 1-85 and 87-95... Unless this matter is tackled by a notable historian or religious scholar, this article will remain a mystery that just doesn't want to address the main name it carries of so-called Ninety-Five now very mysterious and alluding notions nobody knows nothing about. After all, this is a quintessentially important document of the beginning of the Reformation, not some passing document of undefinable gibberish that somebody wrote we don't know for what purpose and God knows just why he stopped at 95 and didn't go further, or God knows how come couldn't have stopped or didn't want to stop at say, for all I know, in his 85th thesis?

Under the title "Renewed request for further protection of page", I said: Let's face it. This particular page will be a mecca for vandalism par excellence by band fans and by band haters. The moment the period of protection expires, we have unscrupulous editors coming back in great numbers with their unconstructive edits to litter the page. I suggest an outright ban for anonymous users for a full year and a conditional ban on editors with user name that have less than a hundred meaningful edits to their credits. We now realize vandalism on Janoskians page will go on as long as the band continues to survive. A new ban for a lengthened period is in order. Just exactly how much more vandalism do you need on this page to establish a permanent ban on frivolous editing? All editing without a Wikipedia user name should be disallowed for a minimum of 1 year. Only editors with valid user names and with a minimum of say 300 edits to their credit in Wikipedia in various subjects should be allowed to make direct changes the page content. Those excluded can always use the talk page here to propose needed amendments and an experienced editor will look into such proposals and implement changes whenever needed. werldwayd (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:The Janoskians

AlanS responded: Normally I'd agree with you but you lost me when you called them a band... to which I answered: Don't turn this down on a technicality Alan. LOL. Sure a band, why not. You never know, we may see them performing like a proper band soon. By the way, I like The Janoskians so much you couldn't believe. And I'm using this opportunity to declare publicly my "guilty pleasure" in cherishing this (ehem)... adorable and brilliant fucking band... made up of obviously very charming and quite talented individuals actually. I even pleaded with other Wikipedia colleagues when I personally added their "This Fucking Song" as a single in the discography section not to revert or delete it, as this was not vandalism, but an actual Janoskian single.... (see my earlier post lovingly titled " 'This Fucking Song' is an official single") LOL

On occasion of creating a page for Aminu Timberlake: Titled "Aminu Timberlake page from an avid basketball and Christian Laettner fan": Reading about the recent Christian Laettner's apology to Aminu Timberlake in March 2015, almost 23 years after the unfortunate "stomp" incident during the Kentucky-Duke game in 1992, critics say one of the most, and to my mind, I say theeee most famous game of college basketball ever, I discovered in horror and utter disbelief that we in Wikipedia despite our +4,750,000 articles and contributions from tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, still didn't have an article on Kentucky's Aminu Timberlake. This newly created article of mine today (27 March 2015) is to rectify this great oversight of ours and is my very humble nod to Aminu and a sort of a token apology from me personally as well, an avid Christian Laettner fan for ages now, from his first-ever year in the NCAA to today, which makes this contributed article to Wikipedia all the more worthwhile for me. I have contributed literally hundreds upon hundreds of new articles to Wikipedia throughout the years and amassed more than 200,000 edits to the project. But I personally find this particular article about Aminu Timberlake symbolically a very important contribution indeed, long overdue and way way more than the many hundreds of articles I contributed, and I must add an absolutely necessary and must page I had to establish on Wikipedia. And being a huge basketball fan, a fan who finds basketball is the most beautiful of all sports ever, a very touching moment in praise of the game that gripped my imagination from the first time I watched it as a young kid in school, a game that still fascinates me even today at no end, a game I still follow with great awe and admiration.
 * Talk:Aminu Timberlake


 * Talk:Pete Davidson

Wikipedia article mentioned during Roast of Justin Bieber on Comedy Central

On occasion of Wikipedia being mentioned during a Comwedy central feature on Justin Bieber, I added this note on the Pete Davidson talk page: On March 31, 2015, Comedy central broadcast a special titled Roast of Justin Bieber hosted by Kevin Hart. One of the "roaster" participants was Pete Davidson. He was introduced by Kevin Hart this way: "Our first roaster is Pete Davidson. Now, he is the newest member of Saturday Night Live. This introduction is way longer than his Wikipedia page! Guy from New York, it's Pete Davidson". You can hear the quote starting around 1:45 here. Interesting enough, the article was quite short and looked like this] at the time of the statement. Looking at his Wikipedia page now, it looks quite more comprehensive. So thanks to all those who pitched in with newer details to add to the page, some even on March 31, the day the piece was broadcast, proving how dynamic Wikipedia can be. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report

Response on [Signpost report on nearly 400 accounts blocked in largest paid-editing bust ever

Wikipedia is not doing enough to inform all potential "victims" of such "edit for pay" scams. Many businesses don't realize that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that asks for no payments whatsoever for its articles. We simply don't do enough effort to highlight this fact to all potential business. As far as I am concerned, this should be plastered on all our pages: "Wikipedia does not solicit any payment whatsoever. Please report any attempt by our editors that ask for monetary remuneration for their edits". Meanwhile in defence of potential enterprises that have actually contemplated to pay for inclusion in Wikipedia: Let's just be fair and logical at least in this instance, businesses just know that being listed as a Wikipedia stand-alone article is valuable, and that such presence has its own "monetary value". The Wikipedia entry will list high on Google and Bing searches, it will give at least a reasonable presentation of what they do, create interest over the company, the article will be developed further and updated during time, have the ripple effect resulting in parts of the article or the whole article being listed elsewhere as well, plus the all important link to the business in the convenient infobox, the company logo free, and the "external links" section leading to the company. And since there are restrictions on insider editing and COI concerns, and all businesses do know that editing requires certain expertise and needs time and effort evaluated by a certain sum based on an hourly rate, some will be ready to pay certain sums for an "independent unrelated editor" to do edits and launch the page for them. If you go to any business that requires service, you do know for sure that the individual serving you is paid for every hour he or she puts in. It is only Wikipedia who depends its service providers (meaning its editors) to work for free for ever and ever just for the love of it. I guess Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, very very savvy individuals, exactly knew from the outset what they were doing in launching such a website, and that they could successfully entice editors for a while to work for this "cause" of "free knowledge" for "free". How neat and convenient, isn't it? Bravo. Wales and Sanger did know, that when editors eventually realize this and leave after a while simply getting fed up with the refusal to be given remuneration for their time for the organization, new editors would show up and on and on like this. This is a sure model for a non-ending stream of "free workers" but is a flawed model as the Wikipedia editors sooner or later will realize they are being sucked in into a system of abuse. So if one orders a bar of chocolate or a refreshment from a convenience store, the guy selling him the product on the counter gets paid for it a cent or two for his 5-10 second service. No single individual would work in a convenience store for a single minute if he/she was not paid. The same for any other work he does. But if that same individual went home and signed in to his Wikipedia user account, put in say 10-20-30 hours of research to successfully launch and upkeep a full developed page about a multi-million selling business, he gets zilch, not even a "thank you" note. So some businesses will logically continue on paying sums to "paid hands" for such work. Wikipedia is so intransigent it even refuses to take any advertisement to nominally pay to its long-established editors depending instead on a never-ending stream of free workers called Wikipedia editors. Plus creating an atmosphere of constant bickering and harassment by other colleagues, rendering it no fun at all if you are targetted. I personally avoid any confrontation myself. If addressed personally on one of my edits, or when confronted with a deletion, I do one brief attempt in my own defense to save the article or the edit and I'm gone. Let them do whatever they want with the article I just created or the edit I made. I go on to other articles and other edits. There is plenty to go by. And to hell with that specific article. Some editors, and I consider me as one of those, is just "too addicted" to leave. I can't contemplate a day in which I don't edit some content to the detriment of many other important things I could have done instead. An advice to editors who want to make some money: Asking for payment for work on Wikipedia from Wikipedia organization or from various businesses is futile. Sooner or later you will know better. Just do things for fun. And instead, please do seriously consider quitting serving of Wikipedia for years for absolutely free, and go and sell on the counter of a convenience store. Specialize on something and develop yourself in that field. If you love writing, write a book instead. Become a publicist of a company or business. Unlike Wikipedia. you'll get paid by your employer for every second of effort you put in for his business. If you do end up in a convenience store instead, at least many many customers will say a "thank you" to you and brighten up your day. Plus you'll get enough money to survive and pay your rent. I'm not saying quit on this "free" Wikipedia altogether. Please do come from time to time and continue to contribute to this "free world knowledge" with some of your really, and I emphasize, really "free" time. werldwayd (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/In the media

Response on [Signpost report on the matter of "Is wikipedia dying?" on Signpost

Is Wikipedia dying? Sure. Wikipedia will die a slow but sure death if it constantly refuses to pay its editors even at a symbolic rate, expecting them to offer their service as volunteers for free, based on this Wikipedia management's mistaken fixation on not accepting advertisements as a revenue source that can be used to pay the editors and expand the site. Wikipedia just doesn't understand that advertisements don't necessarily jeopardise your integrity. They are there to keep you going as a viable enterprise. This is the largest website in the whole planet that I know that simply depends on free labour from tens of thousands of contributors and all it can come up with is a lukewarm campaign for donations from users. This is hardly enough as you realise by now. So yes, your death is long overdue as volunteer editors get fed up with working for you for years and years against nothing and users use it for free not even willing to make a token contribution to help its survival. If you want to survive long-term, start working as a business enterprise that uses its assets and strength to become more viable financially, build up alliances with other business enterprises and remunerate all those who contribute to you. werldwayd (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In answer, a colleague wrote: As Mark Twain almost said: "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". Perhaps "maturing" would be a better term, but that is less eye catching. Also we know from broad experience that death is the inevitable consequence of life. All respect to werldwayd's long commitment to WP, but I found the tone above a bit off, the views lacking in evidence to back them up and the conclusion unpalatable. Ted Nelson has been pushing Project Xanadu for over 50 years and is still vaporware. As for Wikipedia it's success is all around us. I do think innovative ways of developing new relationships would be helpful, but I think the proposal put forward here shows a poor understanding of what viability means in a broader social context. Leutha (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk:10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)
 * On Tradition of launching of pages for gospel songs

Wikipedia has, in a recent count, almost 5.1 million articles in English and many millions more in other languages. As an avid editor in Wikipedia, I have personally launched literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia and edited on thousands of others improving them and adding to them. But I do admit, some of the greatest personal satisfaction I have had, was in launching of Wikipedia pages for contemporary gospel songs, including for example for "In Christ Alone" by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, of "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High by Rick Founds and now "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" by Jonas Myrin and Matt Redman. Encouraged by what I found on one of the versions of "In Christ Alone", I also launched a page for a 19th century gospel "My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less" by Edward Mote with music from "Solid Rock" by William B. Bradbury.

What usually happens is that I am extremely touched by the immense beauty of such songs from the first time I hear them almost by accident, as I do not actively listen to gospels. Usually while doing search for songs on YouTube on totally unrelated music, I run into these contemporary gospel songs and they amaze me profoundly and strike me with their inspiring music and lyrics. As Jason Gray says in his absolutely awesome "More Like Falling in Love", "In more than a name, a faith, a creed / Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me". That's what these songs do to me. Then I run to check if the song has been covered and in all the enumerated cases above, I found none whatsoever on Wikipedia, which greatly puzzled and genuinely surprised me, given the tens of thousands of editors we have. This absence of articles on these profound hymns and gospels that I had just heard gave me the incentive to immediately start the necessary research on a song I didn't know just five minutes earlier, and do the necessary research while incessantly listening to the song concerned tens of times in various versions with even more amazement... resulting in completing the pages for them that you see on Wikipedia, hoping many other readers will browse Wikipedia and find the information, and thus the beauty of this great Wikipedia project in being a blessing to readers, and in case of gospels, literally a blessing as they read about them. So do not despair when you don't find something you were looking for on Wikipedia. Don't curse the darkness but instead light a small light by your research and lo and behold, you would have created a small "miracle" of your own, shedding light where there was none when you first tried it and annoyingly didn't find what you were looking for in Wikipedia (yes it happens). But all it takes is one determined and dedicated editor touched by something to spend his or her precious time to do the research and launch the page. This is beautifully expressed in the lyrics of a Cliff Richard song (himself a singer of many gospel songs) particularly in "All That Matters" written as a tribute to Lady Diana where Cliff sings "The love in you, and the love in me, is all that matters" / "All the rest is just vanity, that time will shatter" / "The only treasure in the life we live, is in the measure of the love we give" / "All that matters in the end will be, the love in you, and the love in me and that's all that matters". It's in this spirit that I created these pages.

Also a personal note of thanks to all those singer songwriters above that enlightened me with their precious lyrics and compositions. I remain forever grateful to you, and these pages are a token word of thanks for your effort in raising my spirit in my darkest moments. Also thanks to Wikipedia for making my day every day I edit on its pages and specially when I edit on such delightful and touching occasions.


 * User talk:Versace1608
 * On comment by Versace about me editing on Daniel Keys page

"Greetings Werldwayd, I don't understand why you're wasting time editing an article about a non-notable musician."

I answered:

Actually any article is worth saving as we are talking about a person or a subject of value even if not presently notable as per our standards. Basically why I edited the Daniel Keys page is because I actually like his materials so much, "Come Closer" for example. To add, I've seen him performing live in a certain event in which he was one of the performers and it just blew my mind seeing his photo and the precious information about his career in this article. I distinctly remember when I heard him, I found him a charming even a fascinating character, a Nigerian who wants to make it in Canada, and in a French-speaking city like Montreal, so an admirable effort. I would actually buy a ticket to hear him live. Plus I have a genuine feeling he will break out with a majour song sometime in the near future and a great video or a collaboration. Imagine the joy that I or anyone could experience once this happens and one feels he or she had it very early on, or contributed albeit in a token way to it happening earlier than anybody else. If he's not notable, well, you still know you are at least supporting an up and coming artist.

One very important reason I edited extensively on this page, is that the article was written in a deliciously atrocious style and language (which is by the way back again in all its shameful glory). Plus that it is clearly written by a "related party" to pump it up. If the article was not gone for some obscure reason, now it will surely be gone in this "original version" that you see now back on our site. It now reads deliciously: "Now With 4 Major Singles Released Worldwide under one year, Daniel Keys has Done What Most Independent Artist cannot do. Daniel Keys is ready to take over the industry globally". Further down: "Daniel Keys has solidified his status as a popular fixture on international and Canadian based entertainment blogs. Daniel Keys has been recognized as one of the brightest up- and-coming multi-talented artists in the entertainment industry. Daniel Keys believes that 2016 will be his breakthrough year".

You know I tried to edit this to make it a decently readable article, even if for a few days. The nice thing about it though is that you can always save it (original and re-edited versions) on you own files and years from now read it again and smile for your effort. You notice I don't defend keeping it as an article here, but since you asked why I edited it, I am giving you reasons, even though personal selfish and far-fetched they seem. Having said that, I dedicate to you this song: "If Merle Would Sing My Song" by a young talented Blaine Larsen. The lyrics are here attached. The song hit hard on me as Blaine Larsen sings "I still could be an overnight sensation - It would only take one sympathetic ear" to fulfill his dreams of success. And that's why I "sing" Daniel Keys' "song" 15:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know
 * Does DYK want to have quirky hooks or not?

So, today we had:


 *  ... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, and trained in Perth?

I reviewed the hook and article in reasonable detail, and found the nomination to be mildly amusing and interesting, as writ. A single whinge at WP:ERRORS from followed by a backup from  has resulted in a DYK regular  folding over one of the fundamentals of DYK, the hooky hook. It turned into:


 *  ... that the British Olympic swimmer Stephen Milne studied in Perth, Scotland, and trained in Perth, Australia?'

What a shambles. Millions of people study in location A and train in location B. Point was the gift of Wikipedia's formatting made this somewhat interesting. Does this project have any guidance, i.e. make the last hook of the set a quirky one, to assist with issues like this? The hook was splendid and now is just bland and unappealing. Well done to those involved in reducing it to mindless trivium. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the change was requested in the section for Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day even though it concerned DYK. I agree that it was a pointless change that degraded the quality of the hook and should be not done or reverted if there is still time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Errr, yes I preferred the original too. What happened there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass folded, as I noted. I guess the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that and indoctrinate it in the many arcane legislations that govern DYK.  That way at least there's some response to this kind of response and lame reaction.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's Supplimental Rule J7: "Consider picking at least one funny or quirky hook if there is one available and putting it in the last (bottom) slot of the update. Just as serious news programs end on an upbeat note to bring viewers back next time, ending on an upbeat or quirky note rounds an update off nicely and encourages readers to come back next time for more." Does that help? Perosnally I always feel that hooks should never be changed just because one person doesn't like it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we want quirky hooks. That set already has a quirky hook in the final slot, or at least I think someone receiving a gold medal four years after they competed is quirky. I agree that the Perth hook was fine as it was and also quirky (no reason not to have more than one in a set). What happens at ERRORS is the purview of admins and in addition to needed fixes and pulls we've had some suboptimal edits to DYK hooks on the main page that were out of our control. It's unfortunate, but it happens, whether said admin works at DYK or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If admins (involved or not) just go to change hooks on a whim (which of course they have the power to do), it hardly is indicative to goodwill or trust in those who pariticipated within the making of that hook. If you have something you work hard to make quriky then an admin changes it based on their or anothers personal opinion and not because there is a policy based problem, then it will put more people off. Sometimes it's hit and miss, I know a few (who were not Welsh) didn't like my Sheep shagger hook but thankfully it didn't get changed but I was lucky on that but there should be a clear supplimental rule or guideline stating that hooks that currently run should not be changed unless there is a policy based problem with it or the article.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how funny you think "studied in Perth and trained in Perth" is even if wikified to direct to two different "Perths", it is still misleading and pointless. I think the amended version is clear and still remains quite amusing just the same without being cocky. If our aim in DYK is to play mind games on unsuspecting readers, or to make the section a guessing game contest, or a Pokemon Go challenge, be my guest, continue to play practical jokes on them on a daily basis. Me, I'd rather have clarity in our presentations particularly in a DYK context. Having said that, yes, I would have preferred that the original authors of the DYK item were consulted before effecting the change. werldwayd (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand the intent, but IMO it didn't work cuz the cognitive dissonance between the two Perths wasn't apparent without further investigation. Sca (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It was neither misleading nor pointless. Perhaps you have no idea how DYK is intended to function.  They're called "hooks" for a reason.  The resulting "hook" was turgid and utterly boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A hook is supposed to arouse the reader's curiosity and entice him to read more. This one didn't work because, as noted, it lacked cognitive dissonance – that is, there was nothing to prompt the reader to say, "Huh?" The attempt to fix it by adding 'Scotland' and 'Australia' didn't work, either, because that gave the game away. Boring in both cases. Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was "turgid and boring". It highlighted a curious coincidence - that the subject had a life connection with two different Perths. Not a great hook by any means, but acceptable I think. The original hook, on the other hand, added nothing to the interest angle since it still relied on the same curious fact, it was just coy about which particular "Perths" were being referenced, and that really is an approach likely to test a reader's patience. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes of course you disagree. But the fact you didn't get it and then turned something which would make you click on the target to work out what the hell the hook was on about into a completely dull hook which would just get people going meh is problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I "got it" quite readily - I just didn't much care for it. But I must say I am surprised to now find you endorsing the principle of clickbait. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I had no idea this was supposed to be a "quirky" hook because when I changed it it was the second hook in the set. Secondly, two users complained about this hook before I changed it, so it was by no means a "unilateral" change. Thirdly, if this was supposed to be a quirky hook, it was a poor example in any case IMO, because rather than reading as an odd event, it just looked on the face of it like a bad piece of copyediting. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had no idea this was intended to be quirky, perhaps you shouldn't be editing hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You said the main thrust of my point is that if we decided to dedicate the "quirky" hook as the last one of each set, let's do that so I was responding to that by pointing out that this hook was not actually in the last spot, which is the spot traditionally reserved for "quirky" hooks. Other than that, of course I became aware when I opened the edit page that the writer had intentionally phrased it that way in an attempt to make it quirkier, but found myself in agreement with the two complainants that the attempted quirk didn't work, and in that respect I concur with the comments about it made by Werldwayd and Sca above. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be good practice if tweaks are suggested when a hook is on the mainpage, that admins first look at the nomination page to see what the intent was.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually do that, but in this case, it would not have made any difference. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This was not an error and so the approved hook should not have been changed. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process..."

- E. B. White


 * , per the standard rules: A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That rule refers to the process of editing the preps and queues but, in this case, the hook had reached the main page. As a hook progresses through these review stages, the bar for making such changes should be raised.  In any case, my view is that the original author(s) should be consulted throughout as they will tend to have the best understanding of the topic.  If you don't consult people to establish consensus then you're going to get complaints like this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrew, the rule is quite explicit about why original authors are not consulted about every such change - it just isn't practical. And the rule has always been interpreted to mean edits to the main page as well as the queue - it would be pretty silly if you could copyedit something in the queue but not after it reached the main page.
 * In this case however, none of this is really relevant; this was a change made by WP:CONSENSUS - the project's primary decision-making process. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk:Billy Gilman

Developing the Billy Gilman page after big jump on visits to Billly Gilman page after his The Voice performance on 20 September 2016

Further to Bill Gilman's appearance on The Voice and his blind audition singing Adele's "When We Were Young", the number of visitors of the page usually averaging below 300 per day, suddenly skyrocketed after his performance and rave reviews into almost 25,000 on 20 September 2016 (the day of performance), and almost 93,500 on 21 September 2016 just one day into the broadcast of his audition. This prompted me to make major improvements and additions to the page, first of course about his The Voice venture and comeback, but also about his earlier career, various appearances throughout the years and his activism and charities as I expect many will visit the page for updated information as Gilman hopefully progresses further. So all this work was worthwhile proving that Wikipedia is on the pulse of the most recent developments in any current event, and in this case in the progress of upcoming artists and is an ongoing collective effort and work in progress for better and more comprehensive coverage.

Notes on creating a page on Wikipedia (on occasion of launching a page on "Gole Sangam"
 * Talk:Gole Sangam

As a very active Wikipedia editor member, I create and edit a great number of articles on Wikipedia on a daily basis. Of course this gives me great satisfaction and seems to be a daily fix that keeps me going with my day. Almost a thrill. But there are few times when my gut tells me I did something extremely good, and I have that genuine ecstatic feeling for having created an article about something of a great value and yet so dear to my heart. In this case, it is the song "Gole Sangam", for it is a song that is an absolute favourite of mine since my childhood days in the 1970s in Lebanon. But after 40 years of hearing the song for the first time, I try to revisit the song through English Wikipedia and to my utter surprise do not find any article about this iconic Persian / Afghani song. The Persian and Pashto Wikipedias also mysteriously do not have pages on the song either.

Besides editing massively on Wikipedia, I also publish a personal 1wxrld Top 100 music chart http://www.1wxrld.com chart where I highlight some new international releases from various countries and in various languages and mostly for lesser known artists. And through my daily search for interesting songs to consider for my chart, I come across a brief mention of a young Afghan singer from the diaspora in Norway called Samir Yawar singing a contemporary version of the song "Gole Sangam". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhG-v1u49I Just 2500 views in 8 months since it was released in January 2017. So insignificant you may say. Nothing remarkable. Yet a young artist Samir Yawar cut off from his country Afghanistan and residing in Norway, with his beautiful new version of a distant song adds to the tens of versions of the song I already know. So in addition to featuring his version on my 1wxrld.com] personal site this week, I also had the immense pleasure of doing some preliminary research about the song and launching an English Wikipedia page dedicated to the song based on the new version that I had just heard from what is a timeless tune. And yet, with the little resources I had, I came up with these precious 2-3 small paragraphs describing the song, with the wish that there will be more edits to develop the page through contributions by others more knowledgeable editors who know more facts about the song, plus one would hope very soon Persian and Pashto Wikipedia articles about "Gole Sangam". It just proves Wikipedia is not only a source of information to readers in general, but a source of immense satisfaction to editors contributing to things truly personal that we as individual editors cherish and respect, subjects that bring new inspiration to own own lives and hopefully the lives of many others visiting the page. werldwayd (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes on our inadequate Casting couch article
 * Talk:Casting couch

Casting couch is such an important subject of great impact as many witnesses come out. Yet we now treat it at Wikipedia as some short hand assignment by a secretary who gave 5 minutes to a single content editor and then closed the subject to any further development. I know we have to assume good faith, but this page gives the impression there is intent to conceal a huge phenomenon in the least coverage possible. The article reads just like some clinical dictionary entry, with no detail whatsoever. We can certainly do better in Wikipedia than this lukewarm diluted down insufficient and grossly understated article of practically no use to the reader. Yet 1000 readers visit the page daily without finding anything of substance. Such a shame. werldwayd (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My pledge for joining the Typo Team
 * Typo Team/pledges

i make tipoz myself oll the thime. But itz not the and of the werld yu no. Their's olwayz rooom for impruvment if we rereed waht we actully pblish on Wikepedia.


 * Talk:We Believe (song)

On occasion of launching page for the Christian hymn "We Belong"

I have created literally thousands of new pages on Wikipedia, and improved on thousands of other articles there ,. I do that to propagate general knowledge to the readership as I firmly believe in utility of Wikipedia. But there are certain instances in which the page I am working on effects me personally and very deeply becoming a veritable joy to create and improve. It is true in only rare occasions as in covering a unique personality or a worthwhile event or significant work. This is also true of many of the traditional hymns as well as the many Christian Contemporary Music pages I have launched as in the case of "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)", "Blessed Be Your Name", "Clear the Stage", "In Christ Alone", "Jesus Is a Soul Man", "Mighty to Save (song)", "My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less", "Where I Belong" or heavily edited as in the case of "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High". It's not that I listen ordinarily to Christian music. It's very rare that I listen to them actually. It is not just the case and there are so many new materials to listen to in general music from many countries and in many languages. For example. in this case, I didn't even know the song "We Believe" just yesterday. But it was my great delight to hear a version and the first version I heard was by the songwriter Travis Ryan himself on his YouTube channel which prompted me to run to Wikipedia, and lo and behold, as happens with all the other abovementioned pages I launched, they simply didn't exist in Wikipedia. Frankly I am genuinely surprised given the range of expertise we have in our tens of thousands of editors that no one bothers. Sometimes I am truly shocked. Yet I find this as an opportunity to me, a form of a blessing from above, or as if a mission given to me to serve The Almighty. So in that sense, I believe God does work in very mysterious ways and I am blessed through it all in words I cannot even describe. And yesm, if this also serves readers eventually, which I am sure it will, so much the better. But I am the richer for it even if no one even bothers to check the pages. On this occasion, it is a pledge from me to give the same attention, goodwill and the same treatment to any other song suggestions that you may find Wikipedia is lacking in. Just suggest them to me and I will be privileged to work on them as well, particularly if they are notable enough, and more importantly the hymn suggested sweeps me with its wonderfully inspiring lyrics, music and universality as well as performancewise. And in that sense, Wikipedia is also a true miracle in the making. I firmly believe in that as well. werldwayd (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Talk:Nova Scotia killings

Justin Trudeau's reservations about naming the perpetrator or using his photo

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked the Canadian media (probably world media outlets as well) to avoid so much as mentioning Wortman’s name or publishing a photograph of him. He said today: “Do not give this person [his words] the gift of infamy”. "Instead of focusing on the shooter, all our attention should be paid to the victims, their families and friends". Since it is one of his country's own citizen's that committed these atrocious killings, does his wish apply to us as well at Wikipedia? I find his position odd. Is it a futile attempt on applying arbitrary censorship or a gag order? Is this a prelude of making Wortman disappear as a non-entity, a non-person that never ever existed. My position is that a cautionary comment would have been warranted if the perpetrator had been a minor say 15, 16 or 17). But the guy is a mature 51 year old man who in an outburst of extreme rage (probably also suffering from a traumatic psychological condition and distress) committed these atrocious acts. And if he suddenly disappears, by his name being banished from all mention, will everything become "normal" again? After such a public position by Trudeau, I say it is our duty to pay extra attention so as not to demonize Wortman ourselves. My comment here is not in any way an attempt to "humanize" him as a person, but a genuine desire on my side to avoid "dehumanizing" him. I would like that the section on the perpetrator is supervized by a very responsible editor to avoid both "demonizers" and "humanizers" alike, by sticking to the facts without imposing a censorship atmosphere. werldwayd (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Talk:Patriarchs of the East

'''When colleagues suggested to delete the pages and fragment it into Patriarchate, Church of Antioch, Eastern Christianity, List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East, List of Armenian Catholic Patriarchs of Cilicia, List of Chaldean Catholic Patriarchs of Babylon, List of Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch, Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Syriac Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, Coptic Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, Ancient Church of the East#List_of_Catholicos-Patriarchs_of_the_Ancient_Church_of_the_East, List of Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem, List of Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople, List of Armenian Catholicoi of Cilicia, List of Catholicoi of all Armenians, List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch, List of Patriarchs of Antioch before 518, List of Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch from 512 to 1783, List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch.

Keep: The split suggests less information (or no information) is better information. To my mind, the present "Patriarchs of the East" is a very useful dab page that leads to all the pages a reader needs. A redirect to Patriarchate of Antioch or Catholicos of the East is not useful and just adds to confusion or arbitrary redirecting to one section and not the other. The existing page, if kept, can be improved through a better listing and with some additional "See also"s. Caveats added to our present article could explain what exactly a "Patriarch of the East" is meant in the page, and some words of caution to the reader would be useful and clarify the concept. But to destroy the page and fragment it to tens of pages is useless and makes the concept as "well now its anybody's guess. Reader, do your own research and find your way if you can. If you can't, tough luck. Just wonder left and right and you'd eventually bump up into some of them if you're lucky and if you are determined and persevere in your hours of blind search, hurrah, you'll find some of them and that gives you bragging rights and self-congratulation of a great work done for a tough challenge". Is that what we want our readers to go through to get the information they need? As for leading the page into some arbitrary vague umbrella title redirect, well that serves no purpose either. It just leads to a subset which may be as confusing to the reader. Having said that, a renaming to "List of Patriarchs of the East" could be contemplated for example. werldwayd (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Jmaxwell10 (When I was erroneously included in a Spockpuppet investigation on my contributions in Tex Brown)

Thanks User:Bbb23 for your clarification. By the way I am one individual and I am a male, so you can address me as "he" not them. The coleague User:Bilorv who initialized all this, has apologized personally posting a message on my talk page, plus that I believe we as long-term editors are thick skinned for such incidences and errors that are bound to happen in a span of many years of editing. As is clear by now, this Tex Brown article is not a hoax at all but is an actual online series that clearly had 1 season, I watched all episodes of season 1 actually. So no hoax. Probably the other two seasons others added are also valid but involve questionable sub-par edits that I tried to correct. But I lost all interest after the excellent Tripp Ali quit in mid-season 1 for contractual disagreements with the directors on pay and on scenes he objected to. About viability of articles, I have created thousands upon thousands of articles, and yes some were eventually deleted. So I am not picky nor desperately attached to one particular article including this one. If they gonna go, let them go.. Colleagues delete one article, I create 10 others elsewhere in other subjects. I mean no one article is worth risking a reputation I have built over the years... This article though is doomed because of lack of references and notability. It had at its launch as a series a certain lovely quality and good acting and subject matter to attract a network like a gay network or an alternative independent network to adopt it. But I guess the film management behind it missed a great opportunity. So now it can be considered as non notable series and I support the deletion of our article about it. If it stays it will attract further questionable edits, so good riddance. werldwayd (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My pledge to myself
1. Don't get angry when attacked. Make a brief response and move on. It's not worth it anyway.

2. Don't get angry when an edit is reversed or even an article put to AfD. Just try to reverse once or try to save once. Then let go. It's not worth it anyway.

3. Don't get angry when an article you crafted is deleted. Wait as long as it takes to establish new notability developing after the delete and try to relaunch if its worth it, even years later. If not, just drop it.

4. Never ever engage in an edit war - Never means never. Ever means ever.

5. Try your utmost not to be warned, worse banned. There's no point in putting yourself into such risk. Be attentive not to engage in any sort of behaviour that leads to warnings and bans. When warned, stay cool. It's not worth it to respond anyway. Just a brief defence/explanation will do, a briefer apology if needed, and then move on.

6. Eventually no single article is worth defending at all costs. If an article is too risky, drop it immediately. You can satisfy yourself by creating ten articles for every one of yours they delete. You can establish page for the individual or subject in other less-threatening Wikipedia languages pages. What is considered non-notable in English Wikipedia may pass on other Wikipedias. You build up from there. Eventually to hell, if any one article will cause your ban. Good riddance. It's not important. Move on.

7. Be patient, be patient, be patient. Lick your wounds, survive, and move on with your life or what you do....

Read this once every month Don't shoot yourself in the foot

Helpful remarks from a colleague who really got it
[User Ed Fitzgerald thoughts] Specially when he says:

A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia

1. Concentrate on editing. The social networking aspects of Wikipedia are a quagmire, and much too easy to be gradually sucked in to. Wikipedia may be a community, but it's a highly dysfunctional one that's it's best to remain aloof from, at least as much as humanly possible.

2. Cut back your watchlist as much as possible. Only watch articles which you've created or substantially improved, or which are very important to keep from being ruined.

3. Cut back on monitoring noticeboards. They're a snare and an illusion [sic], and very wasteful of time.

4. For any future RfCs, AN/I reports, etc. make one brief response, then ignore them as much as possible. Some short additional replies may be warranted, but be careful not to feed the opposition with too much information.

5. Drop any effort that proves not to be worth the energy.

6. When challenged, give it one more try, then drop the effort and go away; it's not worth fighting them.

7. You cannot win against an admin who really wants to win.

8. Remember: They are armed, you are not . When two admins tell you that black is white, it is fruitless to continue to try to show them that black is black and white is white. You don't need to accept their idiocy, just realize that there's little you can do about it, and continuing will just get you punished in some way.

9. Don't get comfortable, stay a little bit wary at all times. Comfort just encourages you to let down your guard, which can lead to trouble.

10. Stay below the radar. Edit reasonably and responsibly, and always with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, but, just as important, as much as possible, edit without drawing attention to yourself. Attention means trouble.

11. On the other hand, don't be an unknown, make sure that enough people are aware of who you are that you won't be treated like a clueless newbie.

13. Learn the lesson that collectively, Wikipedia doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.

14. Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care .