User talk:Heya1982

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four  ~  or by pressing or  in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! Buster Seven   Talk  06:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Myles Heskett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't remove redirect's to articles. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - they're not unconstructive. The redirect is unconstructive. Myles Heskett has a new band and new single. His page needs to be updated as such and be standalone - not redirect to a band that he left in 2008. --Heya1982 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The band is notable - he, independently, is not. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

He has a new band, has signed to a new label and just released a new single. I was making those edits when you reinstated the redirect. He is also a visual artist and had a public exhibition last year. He is notable and should have a stand alone page.--Heya1982 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To avoid the article being either redirected or simply deleted, I would suggest that you draft the article here: User:Heya1982/Chris Ross - that way, you can work on the article, without having to worry about other editors reverting your contributions. Then, once completed, it can be created. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chris Ross. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Also, best read this first: wp:No legal threats Jim1138 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Chris Ross shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 07:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that I am not engaging in an edit war. Far from it, in fact I feel like I am being blocked from making relevant updates to a page which had existed as a standalone until just a few days ago. The repeated use of "notable" is unhelpful as it is subjective - very much so in this particular case. Google searches on a "notable" musician (i.e. Myles Heskett) who has just released a new single with a new band are being directed to a band he is no longer in. This is not keeping Wikipedia newsworthy or up-to-date. As a sincere contributor I request that other users refrain from enforcing the misleading redirections and allow the rightful edits to stand. --Heya1982 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps I should clarify.
 * When I use the word "notable" - it's not using it in the sense, that "you are not notable, at all". In the eyes on this encyclopedia, it's the band as a group, that is notable. It's Wikipedia that is saying what is/isn't notable on Wikipedia and not outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have really high expectations -- I know this first hand as I have created articles on people who have recieved notability from the media etc. - however, the articles have still been deleted on what I would think is minor, but to the encyclopedia is a major factor. Annoying it may be, but it can be just a new source, that moves further away from the band and focusses more on the single person; that can change the outcome.
 * Secondly, an edit warring, is when I undo your edit, you undo mine, I undo yours again, you undo mine... and so on. Who loses? the encyclopedia does. It's disruptive. I have engaged in many edit wars over my duration here. It's not fun, and it gets blown out of proportion pretty quickly. That message in regards to the edit warring, is just a template - to inform you, that you are close/already have breached our policy on the "third revert rule" - Go over three reverts, it only takes someone to report you, and you may possibly be blocked for a while. I prefer instead of engaging in edit wars, we talk civily here, or on my talk page. At the end of the day, I can tell you right now, the encyclopedia isn't just going to walk away - it will stay here, and you may always revisit where you left up from.
 * If for whatever reason, new reliable sources on the individuals are not found, you may always have biographies merged into the article - and those biographies can explain, even in detail, what so and so is now doing after they've left the band. Hope that makes more sense, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi MelbourneStar. Thanks again for your comments. I understand that you're defining "notable"by Wikipedia's guidelines. Here is what I posted on your talk page earlier, not sure if you've seen it:

"As suggested I'd be happy to come to a consensus before pursuing any further edits. I consider Myles Heskett (let's start with that page before we get on to Chris Ross) as a notable individual. To support my statement above, here are reputable secondary sources. Myles' artistic work and exhibition: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/miles-and-myles-on-wolf-trail/story-fn6b3v4f-1226023491423 Myles interviewed as a member of The Slew: http://www.thevine.com.au/music/interviews/myles-heskett-of-the-slew-talks-turntables-wolfmother-and-rock-dogs/ Myles as a part of the new band is getting national airplay on Triple J: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/homeandhosed/playlist/s3547954.htm I'd like to undo the redirection and make those edits. I'd appreciate your support in my doing so. Thanks. --Heya1982 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)"

I've found all that in doing research on Myles Heskett because I Google searched him today, saw a snippet of his Wikipedia page and wanted to read more but when I clicked on it was redirected to the Wolfmother page. Seeing the history of Heskett's page now it's clear there is a lot more to learn about him and his achievements post-Wolfmother. The page existed as a standalone until just a few days ago. Now more than ever, with the release of Good Heavens new single (why I Googled him in the first place) there are relevant updates to his page and maybe a renewed public interest - I'm counting myself here. Instead of going to many different sources for information like I had to, Wikipedia could be the definitive source of info like it is for other notable entities.

It would be so much easier to make those edits to a page that already exists, and I don't really see why his bio should sit inside the Wolfmother page when he is no longer in the band and has a new band. I just want to be clear that I'm trying to strengthen Wikipedia's offering by editing an existing page, not weaken it by undoing a redirection. Thanks. --Heya1982 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Chris Ross
Hi. I see you were involved in the incident with the article on Chris Ross flipping between a redirect and a full article. I've reviewed the subject and Ross appears to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians. As such, I've changed the redirect back to an article. If you have any comments about my action, I invite you to express them at Talk:Chris Ross where I've explained my reasoning. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)