User talk:Theurbanlink

File permission problem with File:Hot 500 Yahoo! Award notification.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hot 500 Yahoo! Award notification.png, which you've sourced to Yahoo screenshot. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The two kinds of links
Jerry!

Normally, I would answer questions placed on my talk page there, but I'm putting this on your talk page so that you can check back if you get confused further.

Basically, there are two different kinds of links in Wikipedia, internal links (sometimes called "wikilinks") and external links.

An internal link is a link to another page within Wikipedia. These links are generally used as ways to point to further information about a topic that is not the central topic of the article, but are related to it. So if I were to say "Nat Gertler is a Chicago hip-hop artist," then that link that is showing up in blue is one that might be of interest if you're learning about Nat Gertler, and will give you more information about the hip-hop scene in Chicago. And if I were to say "Nat plays the melodica", then that's a useful link if you don't know what a melodica is.

An external link goes to a web page that's not part of Wikipedia. These are used both to give you places to get more information, and to give references - sources of information to verify the statements in Wikipedia. References are very important in Wikipedia, because anyone can edit it. Someone could put in that I'm a melodica-playing hip-hop artist, or that I was the 27th vice president of the United States, but there would be no reason to believe it, because everyone knows that anyone can edit any damfool thing into Wikipedia. But If I can link to a page at the Sun-Times website where that respected paper is reviewing my hard-time rhymes and discussing my political career, then people can be certain that it's true.

So we encourage using wikilinks to make make Wikipedia more useful (and fun), but they're no good for references. After all, if we say on the Nat Gertler page that Nat Gertler was the vice president, and our reference for that is Wikipedia's List of Vice Presidents of the United States, that's useless - because any damfool could have put my name on that list. We need reliable outside sources for information.

So yes, we want wikilinks (we call a page without wikilinks a "dead end"), but we cannot use them as references.

Is that clearer? Or have I just befuddled you further? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nat,

Thank you very much for the explanation AND for putting here on my talk page for easy reference...you have been very helpful and the explanation is clear...thank you.Theurbanlink (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

More
For images go here, click "upload file" and follow the steps. Your biggest problem is likely to be copyright. If you take an image off the web, unless it actually says it's public domain, which is rarely the case, you can't use it. Unless it's your own photo, you will struggle with copyright (and people will check).

If you want to work on an article before publishing, you can always do a draft here and get me or Nat to comment or help with formatting. The Blanco Caine article has been tagged as needing attention, not for deletion, so it's OK for the moment. I don't get a sense of how he is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. He doesn't seem to meet the music notability guidelines. There are no indications that his records have charted/sold millions etc, and touring with someone doesn't make him famous. Basically, he's released a mixtape because someone's upset him, I could do that. Anyone can set up a music site, you need more mainstream coverage to show that his notability is adequate. Still, even if you can't improve the quality of the references, I wouldn't panic unless it's deleted.

Your later refs are bare urls, which are difficult to understand. Use the format, and what will show is your description, so BBC news inside your ref tags will show as BBC news, not http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

I'm not sure I've answered your questions, get back to me if you need clarification  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The bare URLs are my fault, not his; I was converting some in text external links to references, and didn't have time at the moment to clean them up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Where to next
Jerry!

I'm afraid that, having taken the time to try to find better sources on Blanco, I'm about to propose his article for deletion. Let me note a few things: It looks like you never got a Wikipedia welcome message, so I'm adding one to this page; it'll have links to various primary topics about editing Wikipedia which may be of use. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm proposing it doesn't mean that the article will be deleted. I'm just an editor here with no more power than you. The deletion will be up for discussion, and you are free to join in the discussion and make your case for keeping the article. If you choose to do so, I recommend you make your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policy.
 * While it's a process aimed at deletion, that just means that the article gets deleted from the active Wikipedia. What I'll actually ask for is that the article be userfied - that means it will get put in a place where you can edit it, but it won't show up when people search through topics in Wikipedia. That way, should the dropping of "White America" have the impact that you expect, get him the attention from reliable sources that our guidelines call for, you can edit in that information and the article can be moved back to "article space" (the main Wikipedia).
 * Don't let that discourage you from being involved in Wikipedia. I appreciate the effort you're putting into trying to do things the right way. You could be a valuable contributor.
 * A good way to learn the ropes around here is to focus on fixing up existing articles. It will help you to see what everyone else is doing on the page, will lead you into discussions on the talk pages, and so forth.
 * Having said that, if you do want to continue to start new pages - I know you've been admiring some of the other musician pages and wondering how you can make a new article look all slick like those do. One big secret is that almost none of the slick pages started out that way. Think of a new article as a seed, or as the bit of sand that sets off an oyster to make a pearl. There really just has to be enough there to make it clear that the topic is deserving an article - that means an explanation of what the topic is, and indication of why it's notable, and references to appropriate, reliable sources that other editors can follow to verify that the topic is notable.
 * If you do want to add some of the fancier things that are in the other pages, a nice thing is that none of the tricks are hidden; if you open up the page for editing, you will see the codes that are used. A lot of it is done with templates; you'll see things in curly brackets (say, ), and if you see something like that all you have to do is go to the Wikipedia search box on the upper right of the page and type the word Template followed by a colon then that work (i.e., Template:infobox) to be taken to a page explaining how that template is used.
 * One thing that is a little trickier is adding pictures; go to WP:IMAGES for information on that.

Nomination of Blanco Caine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blanco Caine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Blanco Caine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

on press releases
First of, let me thank you for not taking the deletion process personally. I can assure you that there's nothing personal in my call for deletion, and that I wish Mr. Caine the best of success with his new release.

Over on the deletion discussion, you brought up concern about what the proper treatment of press releases is in regard to notability. I want to reassure you that the Wikipedia attitude to press releases is not something I'm inventing. You can see the view of press releases even in our general notability guidelines, as well as in various other notability guidelines. As such, even if I thought reprinted press releases should count toward notability, it isn't something I would try to fix at the level of a single article's AFD; it would have to be addressed in more general policy discussions.

All in all, I hope this current situation doesn't discourage you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia; I appreciate the earnestness of effort you bring. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Repost of Edubb
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edubb situation
Jerry,

I'm going to help you out here as best as I can. I am limited, however, by the fact that I am not an administrator, and thus don't have access to the deleted files to see fully what has gone on. The main gist of the situation is that Edubb had previously had a page, and it had gotten deleted as the result of discussion at Articles for deletion/Edubb. So to help me figure out what was going on: But if you presented a new article or at least one with substantial and properly sourced new claims likely to meet WP:BAND and without huge dollops of promotion then yes, the speedy was improperly applied. It is not surprising that that happens, because we get so many people trying to repost recently deleted content that some editors simply see the fact that there was a recent AFD and assume that it's a repost. If that is the case, particularly if you had a source for the claim that their music was in rotation on MTV (and remember, it need not be a source on the web - we love our web sources because they are so easy to verify, but if you have some appropriate industry publication that lists what's in rotation on MTV, and can cite details if anyone has any questions, that's fine), then I should be able to talk to the deleting administrator and have him restore the page. It may end up facing an AFD, but if you have the material, it should be defensible. (The editor who defended on the previous AFD seems to have been new at doing so, and did a weak job, bringing in a lot of points that don't serve to meet notability requirements rather than focusing his arguments on the ones that do.) If you had properly sourced claims of notability but also a heavy layer of promo in the article, I can probably get him to userfy the article, and you and I can work at scraping it down to the salient facts, putting a note on the talk page that makes it clear that this is a page that substantially and vitally differs from the version that got AFD'd and the one that got speedied, and then move it back into article space. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Was the page that you posted simply a copy of that earlier version of the page, without substantial changes? If so, then the speedy deletion was correct. We can't have people overriding AFD decisions simply by reposting (and if that's done multiple times, we do something called "salting" the page so that people cannot easily create a new article by that name.)
 * 2) If not, did the version you posted contain any additional sourced claims of notability, or at least sources on claims that were previously unsourced, that would address the concerns brought up in Articles for deletion/Edubb? If it didn't, then the speedy deletion is at least arguably correct and in any case reviving the article would likely just get it shot down under the same logic as the previous AFD.
 * 3) Was the page laden with a promotional spin? A lot of terms one might use when describing a band would be seen as promotional when put into an encyclopedia. If we were to say that it was a great band whose hot music was tearing up the charts - then that's viewed as promotion. The administrator who deleted it did so for both promotional and reposting reasons.

Nat,

Thank you for your response. Yes the EDUBB page I created has substantial and up to date items regarding the notability of the band. Some of the new items included TMZ reports and usage of their songs, the fact that their song created a new term of usage in the English language "Whooty" is now the American standard term for "White Girl With a Booty" and Google returns over 1 million items just on the word search alone. The band was awarded a national and international trademark for the term. The band's music IS in rotation on MTV and they hold an MTV.com band page as well which is owned by Viacom. The group is part of major releases by major artists to which I provided links.

Notable recent music credits include their addition for the first time to the 2013 SXSW Music Festival official events to include performance on the MTV stage. The group represents American hip hop as the ONLY urban music group of any genre to be sponsored by the German liquor brand Jaegermeister.

Funk originators The Bar-Kays and George Clinton passed the funk genre torch to EDUBB which is documented in a featured article on Hip Hop Weekly (not a press release) and the group has major press coverage or mentions outside of urban media via Complex Magazine, Billboard Magazine (album release mention only), and many others.

I added new content, substantiated their global notability with proof of major music licensing, provided direct links to TMZ articles which mentioned or used part or all of their Whooty song, etc., etc., etc. This group is solid as a notable group, as a band which has impacted the American language and has represented their country as a premier band sponsored by a foreign business entity.

I believe I filled the notability requirements and I was not the only contributor who worked to improve this article. We found Wiki pages which directly mention or credit EDUBB, etc.

I hope I have not been too emotional but really, this group has the right to be in Wikipedia more so than many others with much less content or notability who are in the encyclopedia.

Thank you for your time and guidance

Respectfully

Theurbanlink (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerry: I am hereby withdrawing my offers of assistance, as in the act of trying to research Edubb, I found reasons to strongly suspect that you have been misrepresenting yourself regarding your interest in the articles you've been working on, such as in the statement "I have no personal attachment to the article or person addressed within". --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nat,

I am sorry that you feel I misrepresented myself, that is not the case I can assure you. I respect your feelings and as my mother always told me "go with your gut," I still thank you for your assistance to this point and my goal is only to get things right. I may be an urban music fan but I do not hold any stake personally if the articles do not remain on wikipedia...not much more than my personal pride.

Respectfully,

Theurbanlink (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SmartSE (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard - it is clear from your username and contributions that your only reason to edit here is to promote your clients which is forbidden. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)