User talk:EddieHugh/Archive 2022

Jazzdisco.org
The post on WP:RSN you referred me to listed a number of print works which used Jazzdisco.org as a source. Its homepage states

Compiled and maintained by the Jazz Discography Project team.
 * Nobuaki Togashi
 * Kohji 'Shaolin' Matsubayashi
 * Masayuki Hatta

I don't think those print sources or Jazzdisco.org are reliable sources per WP:UGC. If a print source uses a unreliable source, don't you think it is unreliable itself? Sikonmina (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the WP:USEBYOTHERS part of WP:RS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." The print sources mentioned include very well-known university publishers, which makes them RS, unless there's strong evidence to doubt the accuracy of their contents (there isn't here). The fact that these RS use and refer positively to jazzdisco is therefore evidence that it is likely to be fine to use here. EddieHugh (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fine to use here. You missed the last bit of WP:USEBYOTHERS: "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them". If jazzdisco.org is being used as a primary source, it shouldn't be used. Linking to it also constitutes WP:SPAM and the specific part seems to be WP:REFSPAM. Sikonmina (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Entries in a discography surely aren't likely to be "unduly contentious or minority claims". The established view of jazzdisco, based on its use by RS, is that it's fine, so using it is in accordance with "reflect[ing] established views of sources as far as we can determine them". I haven't seen any criticism of jazzdisco in RS... have you seen any? I also don't see how it's spamming, any more than linking to an AllMusic page is spamming. It's normal linking to a source that's been used. (I'm not associated with jazzdisco and I don't know of any Wikipedia editor who is.) EddieHugh (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't AllMusic's reviews by paid staff? If so, AllMusic is a WP:RS and linking to it is appropriate. Sikonmina (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be seeing things as too black and white. AllMusic reviewers are probably paid, but that's not what makes it a RS (actually, parts of AllMusic have been deemed to be of questionable reliability). Daily Mail journalists are paid, but that's not a RS for Wikipedia. We have an excess of policies, guidelines and other things on Wikipedia, and they all have to be balanced when considering something such as 'is this an appropriate source to use for _____?' There is probably no source in the world for which the answer is 'yes, in any and all circumstances'. EddieHugh (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on how the source is used. Daily Mail may be reliable for certain stories including those on celebrities. If a celebrity gives an interview exclusively to Daily Mail then that would be used as a reliable source. In the case of, the books are reliable but the content that uses Jazzdisco.com is not. It can't be used as a primary source or as a reference. If you used individual parts of books that cite Jazzdisco, the page and paragraph number needs to be cited. References in the book cannot be considered reliable if they rely on Jazzdisco. Sikonmina (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is the opposite of the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. (Your assertion about the Daily Mail is also incorrect. See DAILY MAIL.) EddieHugh (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And which part of my assertion about the Daily Mail is incorrect? There's definitely circular reporting here. ::::::::::::::::Sikonmina (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From that link: "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion". WP:ABOUTSELF is "sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", under certain conditions. So, using it as a source to state something about a celebrity isn't permitted, even if it's (apparently) from an interview with that person. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are picking and choosing which parts of the guideline/policy to adhere to! Sikonmina (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See my comment above, beginning "We have an excess of policies, guidelines and other things on Wikipedia, and they all have to be balanced..." EddieHugh (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And what about circular reporting? Sikonmina (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the suggestion in this specific case? EddieHugh (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sikonmina has been blocked indefinitely, as a sockpuppet. EddieHugh (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Page About Umberto Petrin
I update with inline citation, thank you. Hi, i don't know how i can write a in line citation for every phrase of the bio and career; I found every his information in the official site and source that I wrote on footer on article. How can I solve this situation? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliguerr (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. artupart.com looks like a management agency. That's not an independent source, so it can be used (only) for some basic information if no other source is available. Places people can look for more information can go in a separate 'external links' section. Really, everything that is added should have an inline citation. If you can't find a suitable source, it's better not to include the information. I'll look at the article again in a few days to check. I will probably remove anything that doesn't have a source. But, if I have time, I'll look for some other sources that can be used. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Eddie trying to update my page
Hi Eddie I’ve been having a friend try to update my page and the updates keep getting undone, can you message me ? Thanks, Grant 184.146.193.132 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What page is that? EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete all the info on the James E Pugh page?
Hi Eddie,

Just curious as to why you basically took it upon yourself to completely disassemble the James E Pugh (trombonist) wikipage. You deleted so much information and didn't even contribute anything useful to it other than poor citations to the Groves Music dictionary. We took a lot of time to create it and there was nothing useful with the information that you gave. Thanks for destroying it. Jim Pugh (trombonist).Gtalusan (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It had two templates on it that had been there for almost a decade: 'This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations' and 'This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification'. The edit summaries point out why I made the changes... basically, it was doing what was required to be able to remove those templates. That meant cutting what was unsourced (we need reliable sources) and cutting what wasn't in the sources given (another type of unsourced). Grove is an excellent source. There is a higher standard for biographies of living persons than for some other articles on Wikipedia (see WP:BLP for details), so all of this was justified. Sourcing standards and expectations on Wikipedia have increased considerably since the time the article was created 15 years ago. When adding material, we should have an inline citation for each piece of information (as is the case for the current version of the article). Last, I'm not sure if your signature here is saying that you are the subject of the article, or closely associated with him. If you are, you need to read Conflict of interest. I hope that explains things (and also why your re-addition of the information was reverted by another editor). EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
You reverted my edit to the Boris Johnson article. How long do you feel I have to wait before there is a consensus? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * I'd expect a discussion to be open for at least a week before a decision is considered, unless the outcome is obvious very soon (WP:SNOW). This allows time for interested editors to see it and respond. If, after that time, the discussion is ongoing, it continues until activity has ended or a consensus is clear.
 * There needs to be a consensus before a consensus can be declared!
 * Other editors might give different answers, but this one is close to normal, I believe, for people who don't answer with 'it depends...'. EddieHugh (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice
Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss
Hello, that page is getting a bashing today. What has gone on with her name, as it's hard to see the history on a mobile? I saw your summary about 'No sources for name!' The Lead is also being constantly changed – and incorrectly. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The page protection expired, so anyone could edit it. That's now been restored. The name has a source, although sources probably copy what's there. The lead's grammar looks fine now. The next stage is the POV pushers and the editors who argue that 'this journalist/campaigner/organisation said something and it is in a source, so it should be in the article'... but that continues (at least) until a political leader is no longer a political leader. EddieHugh (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

UK academics and NPROF C5
Just writing here to say that I agree that a full professorship in the UK doesn't automatically grant NPROF C5. Some editors feel strongly that it does (but I think that this is a minority point of view). I think that it _is_ a widely held point of view that a full professor at a major research university is _often_ notable, but often does not mean always, and notability should be backed. Since I'm talking about academic notability: The Journal of the London Math Society looks like to me the kind of journal discussed in WP:NPROF C8 -- you can compare impact factors with other math journals on the journals tab of MathSciNet (if you're on a university/similar IP address); it's also quite an old journal, and it's run by a fairly large academic society. There are a lot of !votes at the John Truss AfD that are not very well-based in policy. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Truss page misogyny
With all due respect, I had zero (0) intention to display characteristics of being condescending or misogynistic (strong descriptions).

I will not revert the reversion, as I agree with you that it’s unnecessary trivia that is not needed as 3rd is not significant, unlike 1st.

I had no intention to display misogynistic characteristics (the hatred of or having strong prejudice against women). The statement wasn’t intended in a condescending or scornful way either. As for my reasons for having done that: Just simply pointing out the trivial fact that she was the 3rd female PM. This info was displayed noteworthy on mainstream news outlets. 3rd is a high number as most countries have not have had 3 female leaders, aside from a few countries. Theresa May’s page indicates her as the 2nd female. I added it as noticed some other 3rd female leaders pages has the same indicated.

No misogynistic intent, although it could have the potential to be taken the wrong way - as we do not do this “third female” or “fourth female” or “fifth female” etc  for men, it is condescending to do it for women.

Have a good day Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for the reasonable response. I'll cut the "second woman" content from May's page, too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Over Reaching Changes of Good Faith Efforts
Why do you keep changing my addition, the guy played that character on Gunsmoke - I cited the episode, it is accurate. Stop inserting yourself in my updates and go check the episode on YouTube. Cduffynyc (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source: see WP:RS. 'I know it's true' doesn't count. Anyone could anything if we allowed that. We probably can't point to YouTube unless it's definitely not a copyright violation. The burden to supply a verifiable source is on the editor who adds or restores material. So, find a reliable source, then add the material with the full citation. EddieHugh (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)