User talk:Criticalmassjohn

Hello. You created an article at Critical Mass (rock band) and said that it was a recreation of a deleted article. I was wondering if you'd read the discussion from which it was deleted? If you haven't the discussion is Articles for deletion/Critical Mass (rock band) here. Recreating the article with the same text as the deleted one qualifies it to be speedy deleted again. If you've already read the discussion and the new article is substantially different then the deleted one, then I apologize for interfering. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read Notability (music)? I think Critical Mass meets those guidelines, but the people who voted to delete it before did not think it met them.  At the moment there are two questions that will determine the fate of this article:


 * Is the text of the article substatially the same as that which was deleted? If yes, there is no hope.  If no, then the article will most likely remain for the time being.
 * The article says the band has recieved awards. It does not, however, reference reliable sources in making that assertion.  I have added tags where the article needs sources.  Can you add such sources?


 * If the answer to question 1 is no and the answer to question 2 is yes, then there is no grounds to delete the article and I will help you fight to have it kept. To respond to what you said on my talk page, this has nothing to do with your religion.  It has to do with Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources, notability, and deletion of articles that break Wikipedia rules. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is largely the same, there are a few (2-3) more citations which don't improve the notability of the article, in my opinion. And in regards to your second question, WP:Music makes it clear that awards won need to be of Mercury/Grammy/Juno status, which, cited properly or not, this band has not done. Crunk 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You said, "I CAN PROVIDE COPIES OF ARTICLES FROM WISCONSON AND BOSTON" Good! That's what's needed.  Do so.  "WE ARE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES IN CANADA THROUGH CMC DISTRIBUTION, WHO ALSO DISTRIBUTE AMY GRANT, AARON NEVILLE, JARS OF CLAY ETC" Good.  Provide sources.  "WE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UP IN THE INTERIM, THE CATHOLIC REGISTER, THE RECORD, GRAPEVINE MAGAZINE AMONG MANY OTHERS"  We need to know all the proper citation information.  See Citation templates for some handy fill-in-the-blank type things that will make life easier. "WON THREE UNITED CATHOLIC MUSIC AND VIDEO ASSOCIATION AWARDS (Www.ucmva.com) AND TWO CANADIAN GOSPEL MUSIC ASSOCIATION AWARDS (THE EQUIVALENT OF THE AMERICAN DOVE AWARDS)" Good.  Again, needs sources.  Like I said, it seems to me like the band is notable.  So long as sources are provided and the article is not the same as the one that was deleted there is no problem.  However, an admin (I am not an admin) needs to look at the article and make sure that the article is not the same as the one that was deleted.

Working on changes for Critical Mass (rock band)
Fair enough.

How much time do I have? I can make some quick additions now but can't address the rest. So, if I understand this correctly, if I can add all the necessary citations, then this would not be considered the same as the previous entry (although much of the text is the same) since the concerns about citations have been address....

I can address most of these over the next 48 hours

Thanks for your time and patience. If we do address this, I hope that you can help us get back on but also hopefully this will stop people from continually trying to edit our pages...

Dave


 * That sounds good. That sounds like it'd take care of any problems.  Why don't I take the tag off, since you now know how to fix it? Let me know if you need help with the citation templates or anything. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk


 * Some points to consider:
 * Editing pages about yourself or your own organization is very strongly discouraged! It is considered a conflict of interest.  See WP:COI and WP:AUTO.
 * The issue is not whether CM is a real band, the issue is whether they are notable enough for Wikipedia. This is far from established, even with citations.  I've listed some issues to consider on the article's talk page.
 * You cannot stop people from editing those pages. They are not yours!!  See WP:OWN.  This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service!  In fact, just about the only people discouraged from editing those pages is you!  If you intent was to get some free promotion, you have come to the wrong place.  (Try MySpace.)
 * Blindly re-creating an article after it has just been deleted is generally considered very bad form. There is a deletion review process that should be followed.  Of course, you didn't know this, since you are new to Wikipedia, and we do have a policy of being nice to newbies who make innocent mistakes.  On the other hand, if you weren't inappropriately editing the article about yourself, this would have never come up in the first place.  Which may limit how nice people are willing to be.
 * I strongly urge you to reconsider your plans to recreate these pages. Xtifr tälk 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well said, Xtifr. I would have to favour the 'other hand' scenario set out in hisfinal sentence.


 * I have noticed you (or your sockpuppets/friends) work on the article for months (including reversions of reviews for notability, etc.). Indeed here at Wikipedia, we do try to be nice to newbies, but I wouldn't class you as a newbie. If you want the article you have created to be reviewed for deletion, then I would encourage you to go through proper channels to do so. Crunk 01:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussion.
Thanks for letting me know that it was up for discussion again. Have you gone to the discussion (on this page) and commented? If so I didn't see your comment there. I have commented, (arguing to have it kept) but it would really help if you would go (logged in under your username, not as your IP address) and calmly and directly address the concerns people are expressing. In addition, when doing a google search for the band I came across this website. I am now concerned because part of the text on that website is almost identical to the text in the article. I did not mention this on the AFD, because I don't see any sort of copyright notice on that website. Please tell me that the article isn't a copyright violation from that website. You simply cannot copy things word-for-word from someplace else and put them on Wikipedia, it's illegal in every country. Quoting a sentence or two is ok, copying roughly half the article is not. If this article is a copyvio, it means that the article legally must be deleted. Perhaps at this point it would be best to start over from scratch any way. Read some of Wikipedia's featured articles, especially ones about music groups like Genesis (band), Rush (band) and The Jackson 5. Featured articles are some of Wikipedia's best, and show you what an article should look like. Good articles are one step down from featured articles and are also helpful to read. You can work up a draft on your userpage {User:Criticalmassjohn) or, if you would rather use your userpage to talk about yourself and your interests, on a subpage like User:Criticalmassjohn/Critical Mass (band). However, it's important not to copy the copyvio (if it is one) to userspace.  Once you've got a new article together that is not a copyright violation and is fully sourced and meets the criteria in WP:Music then it can be moved back to its mainspace location of Critical Mass (band).  In the meantime it might help if you write well-sourced articles on the Gospel Music Association Canada and their Covenant Award, and on your label.  Good luck. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
It was deleted by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Personally, I'm not sure he made the right decision. Like you said, things seemed to be turning around, the article had changed significantly (by the way, I see now that the two paragraphsy I was concerned about a copyvio on were gone by the final version), and I thought that the arguments for keep were stronger then those for delete. I have asked about his reasoning in closing the debate as a delete and, while I have not gotten a response from him I did get a response from another admin, mikkanarxi. mikkanarxi restored the deleted articles as a subpage in my userspace. They can be found here. I'm going to work on it some, and see if I can't improve it to the point where I don't think much anyone would contest the notability of the band. You are more than welcome to help me. Once I'm satisfied with it I'll ask for a deletion review.

There are two purposes to asking for a deletion review in this instance, one is to determine if Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington made an error in closing the debate as delete, and the other is to guage reaction to the new article. Technically we could ask for a deletion review now as deletion review is primarilly to determine if the closing admin correctly judged the outcome of the discussion. However, I think it would help our case for having the article kept if it was an improvement over the deleted one.

If you take a look at the comment above yours on my talk page, you'll see what mikkanarxi thought. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review.
I listed the article on deletion review here. We'll see what happens. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to go ahead and re-post it in the mainspace since there didn't seem to be any objection. It's at Critical Mass (Catholic rock). How it works is there's a button that says "move" (you may not have it, I think it appears after you've made a certain number of edits, maybe 100, I don't remember), and you click the button and type in the new title.  It moves the article with all its history and everything.  Then you have to run around and fix all the links.  The only time it doesn't work is if the new destination has a history already.  If that's the case you have to get an admin to move it for you.  Since the destination had no history I was able to move it myself.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Aeolian Hall 22 cropped.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Aeolian Hall 22 cropped.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)