User talk:Paparazzo Presents

Speedy deletion of "Thomas Fiss"
A page you created, Thomas Fiss, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. D ARTH P ANDA talk 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Fiss
A tag has been placed on Thomas Fiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Non-dropframe (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Thomas Fiss has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/axiomstudiossupportpage"/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Thomas Fiss Article
I didn't save the article, I only removed the deletion tag. You saved it from speedy deletion yourself, by asserting notability in the article, and including lots of references, so it was never a candidate for speedy deletion. However, I'm not quite sure if he is notable enough for a standalone article myself. Per the notability guideline for musicians, if a musician hasn't "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band", he is usually redirected to his band. At this point I'm not sure of that, which is why it's still tagged. Also, have a look at what I did to the references in the article. If you create another article in the future, try to do it the same way, so you don't have to manually repeat the references at the bottom. You can read up on the details at WP:CITE. Keep up the good work, and Cheers, Amalthea Talk 21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've heeded your request over at commons:User talk:Paparazzo Presents and reviewed the notability tag, and have removed it. It's a borderline case in my opinion since most of his notability comes from the band, but there's still some notable things he has done independantly, which should be enough. I've left a note at the talk page though concerning the reliability of most of the sources. Maybe you happen to know some better ones? If so, just add them to the article, or reply at the article's talk page. In particular imdb and tv.com are self-published sources. Anyone can edit those, with only limited fact-checking going on, and they can't be used as sources. We have made up some pretty huge facts here by accepting imdb information as facts, like invented a husband of Julianne Moore, where she had to go on TV to deny it. That's just for background, so that you don't think it's just another example of arbitrariness here. :) Oh, and in principle I agree with you that some of the editors here and at commons should be more considerate. As I indicated, it probably comes with the territory, if you're mostly working on the other side, and have to sort out the good faith edits from the vandalism and lies, and cope with the insults and threats that are hurled your way from some vandals. Just always remember that even if e.g. an article gets deleted, it's not lost and can be restored. The deletion criteria put more of a burden on the editors who contribute the content, but I'm afraid it's the only practical solution in the long run: just assert notability for articles and add a reliable source or two, or explicitly assert authorship for your images when you upload them. It does say all of that when you create an article or upload an image. Nonetheless, as you said, it surely could be handled with more empathy from the vandal fighters and deletion taggers. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Amalthea, thanks for removing the notability tag from the Thomas Fiss article. Now, I've been doing a lot of work on the Bobby Edner article; do you think you could review that article and see if it still deserves the "stub" tag?Paparazzo Presents (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have already commented on that at Talk:Bobby Edner. :) Cheers, Amalthea  22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Teen Idols" Category
'Within the last several days, the “Teen Idols” category (which linked to 24 articles) at Wikipedia was deleted. This seems to be the latest example of arbitrary decisions made by Wikipedia editors. I can just imagine some embittered intellectual glaring at his computer screen, bellowing, “These wet-behind-the-ears pop stars are receiving all of this recognition, while a man of my achievements and stature lives his life in virtual obscurity! DELETE!” Seriously, these crotchety curmudgeons should devote themselves to constructive endeavors (like fighting vandalism and expanding “stubs”) instead of imposing their own opinions and tastes on the rest of us (which the deletion of the “Teen Idols” category just may illustrate). We need a better system of checks and balances at Wikipedia to curtail this capricious behavior. Wikipedia contributors deserve the opportunity to publicly discuss and debate all proposed deletions (with the exception of obvious, inarguable vandalism). Under present circumstances, the concept of “speedy deletion” is being abused.' Paparazzo Presents (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The particular category was deleted as a recreation of a page that was previously deleted in a deletion discussion. See the deletion log and the deletion discussion. To give a brief recap, the concern was that there is no neutral way to decide which biography should go into that category. For the loooong guideline behind categories, see WP:Categorization. Please note that there is a system here to review deletions, you probably just don't know it. If you feel strongly about it, the first thing you should do is go to User:Gb's talk page and ask him if he's willing to restore the category and start a deletion discussion instead. He wasn't wrong in deleting it, but it can be argued that two years after the original discussion a new discussion is warranted if another editor asks for it, since consensus can change. If Gb refuses then you could start a deletion review, where you'll get a broader audience, and where the recent deletion can be overturned and a new deletion discussion be started. Again, Gb didn't do anything wrong, the deletion of the category at hand was publicly discussed previously just as you demanded above. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrowly defined so that they only apply to the most non-controversial cases – in theory. You are not at all alone with your worries though, in fact an admin wrote an essay about it quite recently. Lastly, and in light of what I just said, I ask you to strike the insults from your rant. They aren't going to help. Cheers, Amalthea  16:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Amalthea, there may not be universal consensus concerning who qualifies as a "teen idol." However, when the category existed, the worst that could have happened would have been the inclusion of certain entertainers who may not have been sufficiently "idolized" by the general public (according to some observers). Truthfully, if I had been searching for entertainers like Aaron Carter, I probably would have tried "pop stars" first, then "teen idols." It's a common classification, and it's no less controversial than ones like "celebrities" or even "actors" and "singers" (how much skill do they need to qualify?). The human element (and subjectivity) comes into play whenever these decisions are being made. Any entity (or individual) claiming pure objectivity on any issue is being just a tad hypocritical, and this category was deleted (supposedly) because it didn't meet the "pure objectivity" standard (actually, I believe that a bias against popular culture may have played a role, but that's another topic). Besides all that, you're hearing an opinion from the author of an article unfairly tagged for speedy deletion, and a photographer whose contributions to Wikimedia Commons were originally deleted for nonexistent copyright violations (and who wants to be tainted by that accusation?). These were my first experiences with Wikipedia, and first impressions are lasting. Furthermore, I see so many talk pages at Wikipedia containing exchanges between abject contributors and haughty editors ("Please, sir, explain why you deleted my article." "I deemed it unworthy. Be gone.") Amalthea, I don't know much about the appeals process at Wikipedia, but it sounds similar to seeking justice via the American court system (not a compliment). I'd been maintaining my silence since no one was attacking any of my articles (or those articles to which I'd contributed) but then I saw that red link at the bottom of several such pages, and decided it was time to voice dissent. As for personal insults, I directed some jibes toward deletion crazed Wikipedians in general, not toward any one individual (and, by the way, if anyone referred to me as a "crotchety curmudgeon," my reaction would be a smile, not rage). At any rate, if I edited my words at this point, I would only seem disingenuous and cowardly. However, I am certain that you know more about politics and diplomacy at Wikipedia than I do, and any edits you care to make will not meet with any protest from me. Paparazzo Presents (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not going to censor or polish your comments for you, and admittedly a "crotchety curmudgeon" is probably one of the nicer insults you can make. :) I was projecting your words on both Gb, who I know a little, and myself, since when it comes to actually creating content I'm severely lacking, and I think neither of us is crotchety nor a curmudgeon.
 * "Teen idol" is not a good category in my opinion, too, for basically the same reasons that were mentioned in the discussion:
 * It's not neutral, and there is no neutral way to classify its members. Categorizing a person as an "idol" is giving them a positive spin, which we don't want to do in a category unless there is a clear cut and accepted definition of "teen idol" (WP:NPOV, WP:Categorization: "Categories [...] should be [...] neutral [...]")
 * It's too broad, and doesn't categorize well. I'm sure every band member, actor, entertainer from recent times (since 1920 at least) can be called a teen idol, and I'm also sure that many have been called that by reliable sources. This makes it too broad and too indiscriminate (WP:Categorization of people).
 * You could also have a look at the discussion WP:Articles for deletion/List of teen idols for a quite similar discussion.
 * An alternative I see is creating Category:Boy band members as a subcategory of Category:Musicians. This is neutral and seems more clearly defined (although far from perfect, the definition of a "boy band" is also vague). I don't really know that much about our category system and really only use it for its editorial uses (e.g. Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability), but I suggest you be bold and just create it. Be prepared to defend it at WP:Categories for discussion though. ;)
 * Quite similarly, by the way, we also do not call any model a "supermodel" in their article (unless it's part of a quote. Check Gisele Bündchen, Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer), both because it's not neutral and because there are no good criteria to classify a model, *so many* models have been called a "supermodel" in reliable sources that it's a useless classification (There was some discussion about this at Talk:Marisa Miller and WT:WPBIO, and many of the arguments apply here, too).
 * -- Amalthea 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, I've removed a couple of categories from his article. E.g., the Category:Celebrities is a problematic category for the very reason you mentioned above, and I noticed when I wanted to check it out that it's supposed to be a fallback category if there is no other occupational category where a biography fits into. Also, an article is not usually categorized by every verifiable fact that might apply, e.g. he shouldn't be catagorized as a "child actor" following an appearance in one TV episode. Overusing categories like this makes them less useful (if, that is, one considers them useful in the first place ;)). Category:Male dancers is for a person whose main profession is a Male dancer, and Category:Traditional pop music singers and Category:Traditional pop musicians is really only for Traditional pop music, i.e. pre 1950s pop music. If you don't disagree, could you give the categories in Bobby Edner a second look, as well? I've left Category:Teen idols in until you decide what you want to do, and am (being a crotchety curmudgeon ;)) considering to start a deletion discussion on Category:Youths and Category:Traditional pop musicians because I don't think those are useful categories in the first place. Cheers, Amalthea  23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've opened a Pandora's Box. My goal was to see fewer categories deleted, not more. If you're trying to get me to be more reticent in the future, this just may work. By the way, Thomas was categorized as a "Child Actor" because he was starring on Broadway at the age of 12 (the Nathan Lukowski role in "The Full Monty"). You might want to give me that one back. I really don't see what harm "overcategorization" does. It would seem as though the more categories into which an article is placed, the more likely people are to happen upon the article serendipitously (equaling more positive publicity for the entertainer). No, I wasn't directing my annoyance specifically toward Gb (about whom I know very little), and certainly not toward you. I know you and I LIKE you (you did save my article, admit it or not). Paparazzo Presents (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Please don't, that was not my intent at all. I'll try to explain my reasoning below. The Child Actor category is, however, not mine to give back. If you disagree, undo it. Seriously, that's how it works. :) There's even an essay about it: One editor makes a bold change, another editor doesn't like it and reverts it (with a meaningful and explanatory edit summary), then it's discussed on the article's talk page until some kind of agreement is found. So go ahead. If you will, please read the description on the category page first, though, and consider putting him in the more specialized Category:American child actors instead.
 * Publicity of the entertainer is something I'm not at all concerned about. What I'm looking for is what makes the most sense for an encyclopaedic article, i.e. what's working well together with other biographies, and how an editor can quickly find an article he doesn't know the name of, or how he finds related articles. If the Youths category were properly filled (and there's no clearly defined definition to fill it!) then it would at least contain all articles in Category:1987 births to Category:1995 births, around 12700 articles. There would need to be a process that regularly shifts articles from Category:Infants to Category:Children to Category:Youths to Category:Adults to Category:Elderlies to Category:Dead people. Instead, people are simply categorized by the more specialized and more precise year of their birth. The categories will be less populated and more clearly defined, which makes them more useful for browsing. Similarily, if you are very liberal with the categories you put "your" article in, it might make it more accessible. If all biographies were categorized as freely though, it'll make it actually harder for a reader to find what he's looking for. Note that if a category fits then by all means, put the article in it. I only removed the ones that I think weren't fitting. Cheers, Amalthea  21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You see? And no, I didn't tell him to do that. ;) Amalthea  18:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking from a purely pragmatic point of view, we don't appear to be exactly on the same page concerning this issue. "Overcategorization" still seems like offering "too much help" to those searching for an article. Paparazzo Presents (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Scooter Braun
Hi, I'm one of the editors working on the Scooter Braun article. And I couldn't help but notice that you got to removing the part about his mom working in a sweatshop and changing it to his Grandmother before I could. Which I commend you on. But what I'm after is some help on the article form people who know about Scooter Braun. Would you be able to assist me? Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha thats the same way I found it. I follow him too. But I tweeted him and apologized for the incorrect info and he actually DM'd me back. Which was surprising. So I asked him what his legal name was, (Scott Samuel Braun if you were wondering). I'm now working with him via Twitter to get all of the info verified. Theres barely anything out there on him concerning his "life story" as it were. Anyway thanks for correcting it! Bped1985 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats what I was thinking. But it's hard to get ahold of him, even with him actually trying to read his DM's. Which, who can blame him, I'm sure that inbox is flooded every second by the Bieber fans. Anyway I thought that Wikipedia didn't qualify TW as a reliable source, or at least I've seen edit battles pop up over that repeatedly. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia though so I'm not sure if theres an official ruling about it. And don't tweets expire after a while? Like they get auto-deleted? Cheers and thanks again! Bped1985 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, glad to hear it. The name change that I put in hasn't been challenged yet so I will just keep it in there and keep searching in articles for his real name. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!