User talk:Riseofthetyrant

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rise of the Tyrant, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Rise of the Tyrant was changed by Riseofthetyrant (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-12-28T22:47:11+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. delldot  talk  02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the band from Columbia were notable, a new article should be created for it. However, the band is not a notable band, so any new article would be speedy deleted. Regardless, do not deface the existing article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hey Rise, thanks for getting in touch with me. Sorry for the stern warning, I can see now that you weren't trying to do any harm. Usually, when two things have the same name, we name them something like Rise of the Tyrant (album) and Rise of the Tyrant (band). But in this case, I'll echo C Fred's concern: a band can only have an article on Wikipedia if they meet some pretty strict criteria set out at WP:BAND. The primary one is that it must be featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources. That's basically how things work here on Wikipedia: if you can cite reliable sources for every sentence in the article, you can probably keep the article. I suspect that in this case the band hasn't been covered enough yet to get an article that will be kept. But if you want, you can work on the article in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:/... such as User:/Sandbox), and show it to me or someone else to see whether it will be kept as an article. Or you could just write about the band on your user page, User:Riseofthetyrant. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot   talk  03:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey again, just got your update. If they're notable, great.  But please make sure the sources you use to show this are independent of the group itself and reliable - so a myspace page won't work.  I urge you to work on the page in your userspace first, or it's likely to get deleted.  Keep in touch, Peace,  delldot   talk  03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey again ROTT, no problem at all. It was my fault for being too stern with you for a common mistake made by new users.  About the help, I'm glad to do what I can, but I really don't think you can write an article on the band in the article space for a variety of reasons.  However, you can have the info in your userspace, e.g. on your userpage.  That's what I'd recommend doing.  Here are my concerns about you creating the article in the article space (i.e. pages without a prefix such as User: or User talk:):
 * Conflict of interest: You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself or something closely related to you (e.g. a band you're involved in) per WP:COI. This is because Wikipedia has a very fundamental neutral point of view policy, and it's difficult to remain neutral when you're too close to the subject.
 * Verifiability: As I've mentioned, if you write an article, you have to be able to back up each and every fact in it with a reliable, published source. If not enough has been written about the band to do this, the article will not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, another very fundamental policy.
 * Notability: If you're still thinking of creating the article, please read WP:MUSIC and see if the band meets any of the criteria there. If it doesn't, your hard work will be wasted.


 * Sorry to be the bringer of bad news! I recommend going the user page route, at least for now.  Let me know if I can do anything to help, though.  Peace,  delldot   talk  03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Band article
Hey again ROTT, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. If you want to create the article on the music scene and have reliable sources, that sounds good. Please read Your first article first. And I would recommend working on it in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:/... such as User:/Sandbox) so you can get it how you want it before moving it to the main article space (pages without a prefix).

It is no problem to have two pages on two things named the same thing, as you say, one would be named Rise of the tyrant (band) and the other would be Rise of the tyrant (album). The problems with the ROTT article are notability and conflict of interest: you should not write the article because you're too close to the subject to write a neutral article on it (neutrality is one of the most important principles in Wikipedia). You're right, the signatures won't make a difference, because we still have to go by the Wikipedia policies. The thing that would make a difference is the references. If the band's been covered in enough reliable press (e.g. mainstream newspapers, television news pieces...) then we can have an article. Remember, each fact in the article must be attributable to a reliable source.

So yeah, I guess I'd have to be the one to write it, given the conflict of interest issue. How about this: please read WP:MUSIC and see if you think the band meets any of the criteria, and if so, tell me which one(s). Then show me all the material you have from reliable published sources on the band and I'll decide whether it's enough to create an article, and I'll do it if I do. (you can include sources like the band's website, but that can't count as reliable sources, which must be independent of the subject, so can't be written by them). If there's not currently enough sources, we could still write the article in the future once more has been written about you.

No worries about "going behind my back;" I'm no authority here or anything. You're welcome to ask other Wikipedians for their opinions or for help, too.

Not to give you homework, but my biggest suggestion would be to skim WP:ATT so you know more where I'm coming from with the published sources thing. Look forward to hearing back from you. Peace, delldot   talk  02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)