User talk:Dravecky/Archive 10

October 2009

Need a Consult
Feel like a doctor when I say that :) Anywho, another user has raised question on the WACL (FM) format.  The user says it is Classic Rock (previously marked Active Rock, now AOR).  The station plays a good bit of new rock mixed with the classics (about 50/50), so it isn't your standard classic rock station...hence why I met the user in the middle with AOR.  The user did cite Radio Online, Arbitron, and others saying it is Classic Rock.  I am unsure what to do.  Arbitron isn't the best in knowing what format a station is running.  In my area they had one station as country for almost a year after it flipped to classic rock.  So, I am hesitant to place Classic Rock on the page.  Since you are better in this field than I, what do you think should be done? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, as you've no doubt by now noticed, I moved the article to WACL as disambiguation could be better resolved with a hat note. Second, where the station makes no clear distinction in its marketing (and based on the station website and group website, it doesn't) either rely on the Arbitron listing (which is derived from the station's own reporting) or fall back to the generic rock music claims in the station's branding and marketing.  Looking at the programming and the playlist available, it's hard to call what the station plays any specific subgenre of the rock format as they're all over the map in this regard. - Dravecky (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can just call is standard Rock. I was trying to meet the anon user in the middle with AOR, but regular Rock works :)  I did notice the move to WACL, I always wondered why it was on a (FM) page in the first place.  Thanks for the consult....been watching waaay too much House.  Take Care... NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just remember, it's never lupus. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WACL
Not a problem :) I am always on the lookout for personal attacks and the like.  Took a look at the page and that is some excellent work.  There are several pages I have worked on that could use it.  I am not sure where to get the information, so I always create stubs.  Great work! :)  Take Care... NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The bulk of that stuff is in the "Application List" in the station's FCC database entry. - Dravecky (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike McGinn Notability Tag
I noticed this morning that you've placed a template tag on the Mike McGinn article questioning the subject's notability. As with most drive-by template additions it's pretty impossible to tell what your actual issues are with the article without an accompanying notation or explanation on the article's talk page. The subject of the article is one of two people that passed the primary and are running for mayor of Seattle. If that, by itself, is not enough to insure notability the Seattle Times had him and his opponent Joe Mallahan profiled on their front page this past weekend. He's been the subject of or included in, literally, dozens of pieces by established secondary sources including the already mentioned Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Seattle Weekly and the Stranger. I've added a half dozen in-line citation to the article in the past 48 hours and there are still plenty more to be used as the article expands.

Am I missing something or is it safe to remove the tag? Please let me know by hitting me up here, the article's talk page or on my own when you get a chance. Thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Candidates for office rarely meet the GNG threshold and while this article now has references from reliable third-party sources (a must under WP:POLITICIAN) they mostly focus on the field of candidates of which he is just one or a political stand in his campaign where he is not the focus of the article. It would go a long way if you could prove notability for something other than "candidate for mayor" as most such articles have fared poorly at AfD in the past. - Dravecky (talk)


 * Frankly I'm confused as Mike McGinn, specifically, meets the criteria of GNG. He's a major local political figure with significant converge in reliable thirty party sources independent of the individual. Before he was a candidate for mayor he was a community activist and the head of the Washington State Sierra Club chapter. He's had extensive media coverage in Seattle and a piece done on NPR.


 * Aside for your generalities on how you feel about politicians, their entries and the GNG what is you specific problem with this article and how do you propose it be fixed? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article? It needs those sources you describe about him as a community activist and such that are not mostly about the campaign for mayor. As it stands, these sources are all about his participation in the Seattle mayoral race which per WP:BLP1E might make an interesting section in an article on that one event but not support an individual bio.  As to McGinn in specific, I tripped over the article while performing a series of routine formatting fixes (see this diff). While doing this plumbing, I've found articles in need of rescue, articles in need of deletion, and plenty of articles that just needed the specific formatting fix I was applying.  I'm generally an inclusionist but either this bio should prove McGinn's notability for something other than as a mayoral candidate or it should be put up for broader discussion by the community. - Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Indeed, if the topic is of significant interest to you, the Seattle mayoral election, 2009 article could apparently use a little attention from a motivated editor. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you simply want more sources? That's fine, I'll take care of that, but it's not relevant to the tag you placed so it caused some confusion on my part. As for BLP1E that is a guideline design to dissuade editors from creating articles about "low profile" individuals that, outside of a single and isolated instance, have no other relevance. Were Mike McGinn a low profile individual, say a fringe candidate who pulled 1% or so in a primary, then your objection on those grounds would make sense. Alas, he's not so it doesn't and it really makes me feel like you're stretching here. There are plenty of notable individuals that are primarily known for only one thing. He bested a two term incumbent mayor and a foe with four times the money as him in the primary. His profile was featured on the front page of the Sunday Seattle Times and he's a immediately recognizable name in the Seattle Metropolitan area.


 * I'm going to add some additional sources for his pre run biography and remove your tag once I do. If you feel that is unsatisfactory and that this individual is non-notable and doesn't need an article then I suppose you can seek a third opinion or even take it to AfD as is your prerogative. I intended doing some work on the Mayoral article and that of his opponent, Joe Mallahan as well but thanks for the advice. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's entirely satisfactory. Thanks for working to improve these articles. - Dravecky (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

album-stub
Thanks! I went through that massive list of stubs and did searches for "music" and "disc", but "album" never occurred to me. I knew there'd be a specific stub somewhere. I'll use this for the future! Κεραυνοσκώπηα (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries! Happy to help. - Dravecky (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy Against Questionable Sources in Linda Bradford Raschke
The two books cited in the Bibliography of the article on Linda Bradford Raschke represent a potentially sound source for writing an outstanding article (as well as for substantiating the Notability that some editors otherwise might challenge).

One of the references I've removed (and which you've replaced) from the article on Linda Bradford Raschke is a dead link, and the others seem promotional, rather than objective, independent, secondary sources in keeping with Wikipedia quality standards for source material.

You weaken your article each time you contaminate it with anything less than excellence as a source for your article in an encyclopedia.

Kindly stop replacing those defective references.


 * — Wordsmith (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the reference you deleted per the black-letter language in WP:SELFPUB. There is no explicit prohibition on using an interview with a third-party as a source in WP:SOURCES as you claimed. It's not my article, for the record, just one I had to repair after your edits left the code in a damaged state. - Dravecky (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ________________________________________________________________
 * Thank you for your comment.
 * You are quite right:
 * my failure to remove the questionable and defective references completely
 * produced an ugly blemish that I failed to notice at the foot of the corrected page.
 * Nonetheless, there are three defects to your rationale for this 2nd reversion:
 * The link I removed is dead and defective.
 * The questionable source is an interview of the subject that violates the first and the last of those five conditions:
 * I'm intimately acquainted with the interview of Raschke to which that dead link refers, and it is an uncritical puff piece that encourages her to serve herself and her array of advisory, management, consulting, and trading-related services to the prospective customer as if she were clearly a valuable commodity — and she does just that (as, I suspect, she quite probably is, among relatively few others among all those in the industry, but truth is not the issue here, but rather verifiability with objective, independent, established sources from the mainstream financial press with reputations for checking the facts),
 * and
 * this and the other questionable sources I had deleted were and always have been the only (let alone the principal) sources cited by those who've created and contributed to this article since its creation, its nomination for deletion, and its vote for retention without much substance in the arguments in its favor nearly three years ago.
 * I think I may have mentioned that the two books I've placed under the proper heading of Bibliography seem to be the products of reasonably reliable, independent writers who may have supplied quality sources themselves in each of those publications, and if so, then this article ought to have been founded on just such sources — with documentation — at the instant of its creation. I am not challenging notability here, nor arguing in favor of deletion. I am wondering why none of those so clearly in favor of this article have taken the time to produce the substantial and sustained, reliable, independent and intellectually objective sources to describe, and to substantiate, this subject's notability in the three years elapsed since that early and perfectly rational challenge. In the absence of that, the article leads us to understand no more than that the subject is one of millions among billions who go to work and do one's job well, without any credible claim to notability.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ________________________________________________________________
 * ________________________________________________________________

KVTT/KJSA
Thanks for correcting that mess. Much appreciated. :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorting out what I can but any link that wasn't in one of the obvious lists or in a template isn't going to get caught right away. I'll put hatnotes in place to guide any lost travellers. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Boston John
You've deleted the article, and I would like to make it again because it was deleted within the first 5 minutes of it being there. I was just gathering references now, so if you could give me a bit of time that would be great! Thanks, -&#124;-&gt;TheFSaviator-&#124;-&gt; (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Is there any way I can get back what I wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might consider working on the article offline or in your userspace before moving it to article space. The article must meet the general notability guidelines and include references from third-party sources. I'll move the deleted text to your userspace, per your request. - Dravecky (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You will now find the text you requested at User:TheFSaviator/Boston John. - Dravecky (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Ramirez
You've deleted my article without giving me a chance to defend it. Chaz Ramirez is notable in that he was the owner of the most important recording studio in the history of American punk rock music and he was a producer and sometimes-member of Social Distortion which is a world famous band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MortyForty (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're free to recreate the article with references from reliable third-party sources for verifiability and notability. If he is as important to punk rock as you say, finding sources to support these claims should be easy for you to find. - Dravecky (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Casual Multiplayer Online
You've deleted this article under the grounds of "Expired PROD, concern was: Unreferenced, non-notable topic." Upon getting flagged for potential deletion, I went in and sited a couple references. Casual Multiplayer Online is the new sub-genre that has spawned from MMO games. Reknown game designers such as Toby Ragaini (creator of Asheron's Call) have created these types of social, casual games that appeal to female gamers. Here are some additional references and publishings supporting CMO:

http://www.gamershell.com/news_82060.html?gr_i_ni http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Faunasphere-Launches-On-Big-Fish-Games-19197.html http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-12840-Big-Fish-Release-Casual-MMO-Faunasphere.html

http://gamesblog.ugo.com/games/weekly-round-up http://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/08/14/youve-heard-of-rpg-and-mmorpgs-but-what-about-cmo-games/ http://www.virtualgoodsnews.com/2009/08/big-fish-reels-in-virtual-goods-with-faunasphere.html

If there's any other information I need as references, please let me know. Otherwise, please reinstate this article.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratatatoo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Human disguise
Hi Dravecky. Could you move the deleted article to my userspace for me please? It wasn't actually a G4 (and the speedy tag had actually been removed by another editor), but it's no big deal. The subject is related to the discussion at the human suit AfD (where a couple of editors are disrupting to get their way), so I'll wait to see how all that sorts out before recreating. The content about human disguises is worth including, whether or not human suit is deleted, it's just a matter of where. A new disguise article has also been created per itsmejudith, so maybe it can all be covered there? Not sure. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Drav? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes please do point to the deletion discussion where it was deleted. This wasn't a legit G4 deletion. RMHED   22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Troy King
We need your help on an Alabama issue. Would you please visit the discussion page and make a determination between two differing opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.151.166.209 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your eyeballs on this
Hi Dravecky, could you please take a look at this new editor's recent contributions? Editor has built a new template and is reclassifying radio stations in that area. I don't object, but it looks like an ambitious project for a new user and I wanted an experienced radio editor to take a look. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Public radio
Because they were virtually all already in Category:National Public Radio member stations. You know as well as anybody that articles aren't supposed to be in both of those categories at the same time, per duplicate categorization rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)