User talk:Cowboygilbert

Jordan Schmidt discography
Cheers, Thank you for your recent edits. I have one question.

My statement from one of the sections you modified stated:

All material is sourced from: Jamestown Story[6] iTunes[7] Spotify[8] Disogs[9]

You removed the iTunes, Spotify, and Disogs references with the justification "unreliable sources." I understand Disogs is considered unreliable by Wikipedia due to user-generated data. The same is not true of Spotify and iTunes. The rap on iTunes is - it sometimes is missing vital information. Neither of the sites can be accused of showing favoritism or bias. Where on Wikipedia is it stated that iTunes and Spotify are unreliable data sources and, as a result, cannot be used as references?

Michael Jannetta (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mtjannetta, iTunes and Spotify are not-so-great sources for music related articles. The ones for iTunes can be found at WikiProject Albums/Sources and Spotify links are just a general caution for any discography editors. I also happened to notice that you had a different variation in your style of discographies away from other discographies on the website. You can keep it per MOS:VAR but I just wanted to let you know that it isn't the standard for discographies. Instead of use iTunes, Spotify, Discogs, and Jamestown Story try to use independent sources from reputable news sources to back your claims. You can find sources at WP:PRS and WP:A/S for music-related articles. Thank you, Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  05:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mtjannetta, I was also informed by another editor that your method of doing tables breaks MOS:TABLES and has accessbility issues for people who are colorblind or visually impaired. Would you find a way to try to work around this? Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the above observations - I am more than happy to fix this issues. Could you please describe specifically what "accessiblity issues" I need to correct and how I break tables.

Thank You

Michael Jannetta (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mtjannetta. Well, MOS:TABLES is the generalized way that editors on Wikipedia create tables, most editors tend to stay on this variation of tables and hardly stray from it. This has been disputed, talked about, decided through consensus over the years. Accessibility issues like the dark gray headers that you have that hide the "[show]" and "[hide]" prompts which can be pretty tricky to see. Black text and dark gray background don't go together either, it gets hard for some to see. Unless, you want to WP:IAR and continue with it, be my guest. I also wanted to talk to you about your most recent article, Glossary of slang used in reviewing silent movie melodrama which breaks Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You do know that you can do interwiki links to Wikitonary through ? Thank you,  Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  00:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have modified the two tables on the Jordan Schmidt page. Are these tables now adhering to standards set in MOS:TABLES?
 * If so, I will then modify tables located on the discography page accordingly.
 * Thanks
 * Michael Jannetta (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. Remember, you don't have to switch your variation of the tables at the discography. But, did you see my statement about one of your most recent articles though? Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  02:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies
I have edited here for 20 years. My motive for writing the Jennifer Klein article is contained in <!-- markup inside the uploaded article—to provide the information I was looking for when I came here, and found no article.

The individual is clearly notable—she has held WH positions in 3 recent administrations, heads a Council which has a Wikipedia article about it, and was the inaugural co-chair of that Council, where her co-chair also has a Wikipedia article about them.

The citations are more complete than the related articles referenced, and while not perfect, are good enough for a stub. Putting it at the back of the line for reasons that do not square with the quality of the piece submitted—or with comparable stub qualities already out there—just communicates that it is a waste of precious time for academics to volunteer time here.

Bottom line, the stub is good (better than most), and so ready for article space. If it is set aside for reasons of quality, I will just shake my head, and stop initiating professional quality work here. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @98.206.30.195, Well, if she is notable. Find sources that establish notability. If you have been editing for 20 years on Wikipedia than you should know the subjects of an article has to have independent and reliable sources that establish notability. Primary sources do not do that. Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  03:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)